🟥 An Open Letter to Ombudsman Boying Remulla
Subject: Revisiting and Resolution of the Arthur Carandang Case
Dear Ombudsman Remulla,
A man did his job. That is the simplest way to describe what happened to Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang.
In 2017, based on a complaint filed by then-Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, Deputy Ombudsman Carandang began investigating allegations that President Rodrigo Duterte and members of his family had undeclared bank accounts and millions in unexplained wealth that did not appear in Duterte's officially filed statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth.
According to the documents before the Ombudsman, Duterte and his daughter Sara had joint accounts in multiple banks totaling approximately 1.74 billion pesos in deposits and transfers during the period of 2006-2015—money that Duterte reported as a net worth of only 21.97 million pesos in his 2014 statement.
Carandang conducted his investigation diligently.
He publicly cited bank transaction details from the Anti-Money Laundering Council records that had been shared with the Office of the Ombudsman for intelligence purposes.
In November 2017, his investigation was forced to terminate when the AMLC refused to provide additional data he had requested.
What happened next was not the continuation of a legitimate administrative process; it was retaliation dressed in bureaucratic language.
In October 2017, before Carandang's investigation had even concluded, administrative complaints were filed against him.
The accusers included lawyers close to the Duterte administration, one of whom would later become a Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission Commissioner.
The charge was simple: he had divulged confidential information.
Never mind that he was performing his constitutional duty or that the information came from official government intelligence channels.
He was painted as biased, as attempting to destabilize the administration, as the pawn of a political opposition figure.
President Duterte ordered Carandang's suspension for 90 days in January 2018.
Then-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales refused to enforce it.
She was correct.
The Supreme Court had already ruled in 2014, in the case of Gonzales III v. Office of the President, that a president has no administrative or disciplinary jurisdiction over a deputy ombudsman.
To enforce such an order, Morales wrote, would be “patently unconstitutional” and “an affront to the Supreme Court.”
That court ruling protected the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman and stood between a public servant and the power of the presidency.
But institutional strength requires consistency.
When Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales stepped down in July 2018, President Duterte appointed Samuel Martires as her successor.
Martires was a Supreme Court justice at the time, also appointed to the Court by Duterte the year before.
And when Martires became Ombudsman, he announced that he had “no choice” but to enforce Duterte's dismissal order against Carandang.
Martires called the Supreme Court ruling on the president's lack of jurisdiction a matter for the courts to decide, declining to protect the independence of his own institution.
On July 30, 2018, the Office of the President issued a dismissal order against Carandang, and Martires enforced it.
Carandang was found guilty of “graft and corruption” and “betrayal of public trust”—the same charges that Duterte leveled against him.
His retirement benefits were forfeited, and he was barred from civil service examinations and permanently disqualified from holding public office.
A man who spent his career in public service was erased from that service because he did what the law required him to do.
The partnership between Rodrigo Duterte and Samuel Martires succeeded in silencing an investigator who had evidence of the president's undeclared wealth.
That outcome sent a clear message to anyone in government who might consider investigating corruption at the highest levels.
You now hold the office that Martires held.
The independent Office of the Ombudsman still bears the marks of what happened to Carandang.
More importantly, Carandang himself still bears those marks.
The issue at hand is the independence of your office—whether it truly exists or merely serves the convenience of whoever occupies the presidency at any given moment.
I ask you to do what should have been done in 2018.
I ask you to revisit this case honestly and examine what truly occurred.
Review the evidence that Carandang was investigating.
Assess whether his conduct amounted to criminal misconduct or whether he was performing his duty with integrity while operating under the guidance of official government channels.
Examine whether the administrative complaints filed against him were legitimate or part of a coordinated campaign to obstruct a legitimate investigation.
This is a matter of institutional principle.
When a deputy ombudsman can be destroyed for investigating presidential corruption, the entire mechanism of anti-corruption breaks down.
The Office of the Ombudsman becomes a tool of power rather than a check on abuse of authority.
You have the authority to right this wrong.
You have the opportunity to demonstrate that the independence of your office does not bend to presidential preference, and that integrity in pursuing corruption allegations will be protected rather than punished.
I call on you to revisit the case of Arthur Carandang.
Clear his name.
Restore his benefits.
Repair the damage done by the partnership of Rodrigo Duterte and Samuel Martires to a man who simply did his job.
Respectfully,
A Concerned Citizen and Observer of Justice
🟥 Sources:
1. The man who dared | Inquirer Opinion
https://opinion.inquirer.net/122356/the-man-who-dared
2. Ombudsman to enforce dismissal order vs Carandang | Manila Standard
https://manilastandard.net/?p=272376
3. Philippines: Duterte Fires Official Probing Him for Graft | OCCRP
https://www.occrp.org/en/news/philippines-duterte-fires-official-probing-him-for-graft
4. Ombudsman: Preventive suspension of Carandang affront | PNA
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1023627
5. Palace dismisses Deputy Ombudsman Carandang from office | GMA News
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/662540/deputy-ombudsman-carandang-dismissed-from-office-official/story/
6. Philippine anti-graft official sacked for revealing Duterte probe details | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/philippine-anti-graft-official-sacked-for-revealing-duterte-probe-details-idUSKBN1KM4D0/
7. Profs. La Viña, Hilbay, and Gatmaytan on Deputy Ombudsman Carandang’s unconstitutional suspension | UP College of Law
https://law.upd.edu.ph/profs-la-vina-hilbay-and-gatmaytan-on-deputy-ombudsman-carandangs-unconstitutional-suspension/
8. Statement of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang
https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/statement-of-overall-deputy-ombudsman-melchor-arthur-h-carandang/
9. Palace dismisses Deputy Ombudsman Carandang | PNA
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1043350
Photo Credit: Vera Files
No comments:
Post a Comment