A monumental and highly controversial legal confrontation has erupted in the nation’s political arena, pitting two powerful Ombudsmen—one former, one current—against a sitting Senator and his fiercely loyal allies. This astonishing drama is centered on the revival of a decades-old dismissal order, yet the most explosive twist is the counter-claim now being mounted by the Senator’s supporters: not only is the current Ombudsman, Boying Remulla, reportedly mistaken in his actions, but his predecessor, Conchita Carpio Morales, and Remulla himself are now being told they should be the ones issuing an apology for causing irreparable harm to the Senator’s honor. This astonishing demand hinges entirely on the existence of a high-level decree that was kept hidden from the public eye for six excruciating years.

The foundation of this defense rests on a profound secret: an administrative order allegedly issued in 2019 by former Ombudsman Samuel Martirez. Senator Villanueva’s camp, notably championed by vocal allies like Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, insists that this order granted the Senator’s motion for reconsideration, effectively reversing and dismissing the original 2016 dismissal order handed down by Morales regarding a massive fund allocation controversy. According to this narrative, the case was decisively closed years ago, making Remulla’s recent move to enforce the 2016 order not a defense of justice, but a regrettable error based on faulty or incomplete legal advice. Cayetano publicly expressed hope that Remulla would “clarify that” and acknowledge the prior dismissal, which he claims makes the matter “not even a debatable issue.”

However, this is where the controversy explodes into a question of legal and ethical integrity. The crucial fact fueling the ongoing crisis is that the 2019 reversal order was never made public. For six long years, the order that supposedly exonerated a Senator and negated a major anti-corruption action was kept entirely under wraps, known only to a select few. This concealment has prompted a fierce legal counter-argument that challenges the very validity of the “secret justice.” Prominent legal experts argue that an order hidden in the dark, undisclosed to the public and the media, fundamentally lacks the “force of law.”

In this view, the secret 2019 order is nothing more than an internal administrative memo, stripped of its legal authority because its very concealment deprived the public of its right to question or appeal the reversal. The original 2016 dismissal by Morales was a constitutional act, open and transparent. To overturn public justice with a secret decree, critics argue, is a profound abuse of process—it is concealment, not due process. By keeping the reversal undisclosed, Martirez denied the public and any other concerned parties the chance to appeal the decision to a higher court. Therefore, the current Ombudsman, Remulla, has been advised that he is legally sound in enforcing the original 2016 dismissal because the secret reversal is effectively null and void. This legal interpretation shifts the scandal from an argument over the Senator’s guilt to an argument over the institutional integrity of the Ombudsman’s office itself.

Villanueva’s staunch defenders, however, adamantly maintain the Senator’s innocence, pointing to key evidentiary details that they claim were the basis for the 2019 reversal. Their arguments center on what they call fundamental technical and procedural errors in the original 2016 case. First, they highlight an alleged falsified signature on the documents that formed the core of the complaint, claiming that forensic tests conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) found the signature was not the Senator’s. Second, they cite a technical error: the project funds in question were reportedly allocated to the BUHAY party list, while the Senator was the representative of the CIBAC party list, rendering the entire basis of the complaint flawed from the start. Based on these two alleged irrefutable facts, the Senator’s loyalists argue that the 2019 reversal was not only warranted but was the only correct action to take, finally proving the Senator’s complete lack of culpability.

With these claims in hand, the Senator’s allies have escalated their rhetoric to an unprecedented level, demanding a public apology from both the former and current Ombudsmen. They assert that the Senator, whom they call a “faithful and respected public servant,” has endured years of unwarranted ridicule, shame, and reputational destruction based on an ultimately flawed and dismissed case. They demand that the two officials apologize for “ruining a man’s name without basis” and for “igniting wrong accusations.” The audacity of the demand—to ask the head of the nation’s highest anti-graft body to apologize for performing his constitutional duty—highlights the intense political stakes and the deep ethical divide in the current political landscape.

This entire saga is framed by a highly suspicious timeline: the initial project controversy in 2008, the public dismissal order in 2016, the secret reversal in 2019, and the shocking public revelation and subsequent enforcement threat in 2025. This chronology begs a critical question: Why was the reversal order—which supposedly proved the innocence of a high-ranking public official—kept concealed from the public, the media, and even the body responsible for enforcement for six crucial years? The fact that the Senator and his allies reportedly remained silent about the supposedly exonerating decision has led critics to speculate openly about a “gentleman’s agreement” or “secret deal” designed to protect the Senator from further scrutiny, appeal, or legal challenge by those who might have questioned Martirez’s decision at the time. The ultimate resolution of this crisis will not only determine the political fate of a prominent Senator but will also provide a definitive ruling on whether a secret administrative action can be considered a valid resolution, or if it must be rejected as an act of concealment that deprives the citizenry of their fundamental right to justice.