Ombudsman stops probe on graft complaint vs. Romualdez, House leaders

The Office of the Ombudsman has stopped the probe on the complaint alleging Speaker Martin Romualdez and other House leaders of graft over the passage of the P6.325 trillion national budget for 2025.

Ombudsman Samuel Martires said the anti-graft body cannot rule on the same issue being challenged with the Supreme Court.

He was referring to the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed with the Supreme Court by former executive secretary Victor Rodriguez, Davao City Representative Isidro Ungab, among others which challenges the legality of the 2025 General Appropriations Act due to supposed blanks in the bicameral conference committee report.

“Doubtless, the alleged criminal liability of respondents Romualdez, et. al., that is raised in the herein Complaint, refers also to the same blank items in the Bicam Report that is the subject of the petition for certiorari and prohibition. In the wink of an eye, common sense will remind any student of the law that judicial courtesy dictates that the quasi-judicial body should, and must yield and await the decision of the High Tribunal before acting on the case pending before it,” Martires, a former Supreme Court justice, said.

“The Supreme Court must first resolve the issue of constitutionality before the criminal action pending before the Ombudsman will proceed. Wherefore, the foregoing considered, further action on the criminal complaint docketed as OMB-C-C-FEB-25-0042 is ordered suspended and held in abeyance until such time that the Supreme Court has resolved with finality the pending Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition in G.R. No. 27797,” Martires, who was appointed as Ombudsman by former President Rodrigo Duterte, added.

Further, Martires junked a motion from a similar set of graft complainants seeking preventive suspension against Romualdez and other House leaders, saying the request is not in order since a graft case is yet to be filed against the Speaker.

“Here, no [criminal] information has as yet been filed so obviously, the mandatory suspension pendente lite under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 does not also apply,” he said.

"For utter paucity of merit, the Motion for Preventive Suspension, dated February 17, 2025, is hereby denied,” he added.—AOL, GMA Integrated News