Justice Stabbed in the Back: Martires’ Duterte Ties Taint the Confidential Funds Case

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 23, 2025

P612.5 million. A Vice President. A Judas cloaked in legal sanctimony. The Ombudsman’s probe into Sara Duterte’s confidential funds isn’t just forensic—it’s a bloodsport. At Kweba ng Katarungan, we’re dissecting the vendettas, the paper-trail grenades, and the kiss of betrayal behind the numbers. This isn’t bureaucracy. It’s a knife fight in the dark. And we’ve got the flashlight.

Motu Proprio or Political Hit Job? The Ombudsman’s High-Stakes Gamble

Is the Ombudsman’s probe a fearless strike against corruption or a calculated takedown of Sara Duterte? Let’s slice through the noise with a legal scalpel.

For: Constitutional Firepower and a Smoking Money Trail

The Ombudsman’s motu proprio authority is a constitutional juggernaut. Article XI, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution grants it the power to probe any public official’s act that smells “illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.” Section 15 of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) is its legal bazooka, letting it act without a formal complaint. The Supreme Court in Fabian v. Desierto (G.R. No. 129742, 1998) gave this a judicial high-five, affirming the Ombudsman’s discretion to hunt corruption.

The House Committee on Good Government’s Report No. 1503 is the spark: P612.5 million (P500M OVP, P112.5M DepEd) allegedly misspent, including P125 million burned in 11 days and P73 million flagged by COA for missing documents. That’s not just probable cause—it’s a neon sign screaming “investigate me!” The Ombudsman isn’t overreaching; it’s answering the call of duty.

Against: The 10-Day Guillotine and Suspicious Timing

Hold the applause—something’s rotten in Manila. The Ombudsman’s order, signed by Assistant Ombudsman Nellie Boguen-Golez, slaps Duterte and nine subordinates with a 10-day deadline to file counter-affidavits for heavyweight charges like technical malversation, falsification, and plunder. Ang Tibay v. CIR (G.R. No. 46496, 1940) demands a “fair and reasonable opportunity” to defend, but 10 days to unravel three years of allegations? That’s a procedural death trap, not due process.

And the timing? It’s shadier than a backroom deal. The probe lands amid Duterte’s impeachment trial and the Marcos-Duterte alliance imploding like a bad soap opera. Why now, when the House report’s been simmering? Critics smell a political hit, with the Ombudsman as the hired gun.

Martires: Umpire of Justice or Duterte’s Loyal Lapdog?

Ombudsman Samuel Martires, handpicked by Sara’s father, Rodrigo Duterte, is the wildcard in this legal cage match. Is he a neutral arbiter or a Duterte devotee? Let’s dig into the dirt.

The Loyalty Bomb: A Duterte Appointee’s Tainted Past

Martires’ resume is a conflict-of-interest landmine. Appointed by Rodrigo Duterte in 2018, he’s dodged transparency like a pro, notably stonewalling SALN releases (Inquirer, 2019). RA 6713 (Code of Conduct for Public Officials) demands public trust over personal ties, but Martires’ track record—labeled a “protector of corrupt politicians” by Rappler—screams Duterte loyalty. When the Ombudsman’s probing the ex-president’s daughter, that’s a conflict brighter than a courtroom spotlight.

The Panel Ploy: Golez’s Team or Martires’ Puppet Show?

To dodge the bias bullet, the Ombudsman trots out a special panel led by Assistant Ombudsman Nellie Boguen-Golez. Sounds like a safeguard, right? Don’t bet on it. RA 6770, Sec. 15(10) allows such panels, but Martires still calls the shots. Is Golez’s team a firewall or a carefully staged distraction? This could be less “independent investigation” and more “loyalty test in disguise.”

Legal Landmines: Where Duterte’s Defense Could Blow Up

This case isn’t just political theater; it’s a legal battlefield rigged with explosives. Let’s light the fuse on the key issues.

Substantive: Confidential Funds in a Legal Chokehold

The Supreme Court’s Laak Municipality v. COA (G.R. No. 219484, 2023) is a legal claymore: confidential funds must tie directly to law enforcement and stay under 30% of peace and order budgets. Spoiler alert: OVP and DepEd aren’t the PNP or AFP. Duterte’s alleged use of funds for non-confidential purposes, backed by falsified documents, screams technical malversation (Article 220, Revised Penal Code). The House’s claim of P50 million amassed by security officials even flirts with plunder (RA 7080). This isn’t a paperwork error; it’s a legal bloodbath.

Procedural: The House’s “Not My Problem” Pirouette

The House’s role is a masterclass in dodging accountability. Rep. Joel Chua’s committee drops a scathing report, but spokesperson Princess Abante pirouettes away, claiming, “We’re not the complainant!” (Philstar). The Ombudsman names the House committee as the nominal complainant, yet Abante’s acting like she’s dodging a subpoena. This isn’t just procedural tap-dancing; it’s a full-on circus act that muddies the case’s legitimacy.

Fixing the Fiasco: How to Save This Probe from Imploding

This investigation is a legal tightrope, and one misstep could crater public trust. Here’s how to keep it from blowing up:

Boot Martires Off the Case: The Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 3) demands impartiality. Martires’ Duterte ties are a screaming conflict. He must recuse himself, or a special prosecutor should step in to defuse the bias bomb.
Live-Stream the Showdown: The Ombudsman’s secrecy is a trust-killer. Live-streamed hearings, allowed under OMB Rules of Procedure, would let the public watch justice unfold. If Martires is clean, why hide?
Ditch the 10-Day Death Clock: Due process isn’t optional. Extend the response deadline to 30 days to give Duterte’s camp a fair shot, or risk an Ang Tibay reversal in the Supreme Court.

The Final Gavel (For Now)

The Ombudsman’s probe is a constitutional powerhouse, fueled by a damning House report and COA’s red flags. But Martires’ Duterte ties, the 10-day guillotine, and the House’s “not me” routine cast a shadow darker than a Manila blackout. This isn’t about P612.5 million—it’s about whether the Philippines can hold its elite accountable without tripping over political loyalties. Grab your popcorn; this legal thriller’s climax is still unwritten.

Key Citations

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.