Will the JBC Unleash a Fearless Ombudsman or Kneel to Political Puppetry?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — August 9, 2025

I. Battle Cry: A Reformer Under Siege

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) stands at the precipice of history. Will it anoint Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla as the Philippines’ next Ombudsman—a fearless warrior against corruption—or crumble under the weight of dynastic vendettas? Remulla, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary who dared to jail a former president, is no ordinary candidate. His bid is a referendum on whether the Ombudsman will be a roaring watchdog or a neutered lapdog.

The complaints against Remulla, orchestrated by Senator Imee Marcos, are no coincidence. Filed in the wake of his DOJ’s audacious arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte in March 2025, these accusations are a blatant attempt to derail a reformer. But make no mistake: these are not proof of guilt—they’re medals of valor for challenging the untouchable. The JBC must see through this political charade and recognize Remulla’s ironclad independence as the lifeblood of the Ombudsman’s mission.

II. Legal Arsenal: Demolishing the Opposition

Why Remulla Is Unassailable

The Constitution is unequivocal: Remulla is a textbook fit for Ombudsman. Article XI, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution demands a natural-born citizen, at least 40 years old, a Philippine Bar member with 10 years of legal practice, and proven integrity. At 64, a bar member since 1987, and with a storied career as congressman, Cavite governor, and DOJ Secretary, Remulla exceeds these benchmarks.

The Supreme Court in De Castro v. JBC (G.R. No. 191002, 2010) clarified that the JBC’s role is to confirm these qualifications—not to concoct new barriers. Any move to sideline Remulla over nebulous “moral turpitude” claims is judicial overreach, plain and simple.

Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act, only disqualifies candidates convicted of moral turpitude crimes—not those merely accused. In Dela Torre v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 1996), the Supreme Court held that pending complaints do not bar candidacy absent a final conviction. Remulla faces no such conviction—only allegations, protected by the Constitution’s presumption of innocence (Article III, Section 14(2). To disqualify him now would greenlight a future where any reformer can be kneecapped by unproven claims.

Remulla’s DOJ tenure embodies Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: “A lawyer shall uphold the rule of law.” His prosecution of Duterte, a former ally, and his impartial pursuit of high-profile cases prove his mettle. If this isn’t the “recognized probity and independence” the Constitution demands, what is?

Crushing the Counterattacks

The opposition’s case is flimsy at best.

First, the “moral turpitude” argument, fueled by Senator Marcos’ complaints, is a legal mirage. In Dela Torre v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 1996), the Supreme Court defined moral turpitude as acts of “baseness, vileness, or depravity.” Allegations of abuse of authority or malicious delay under the Revised Penal Code or RA 3019 are just that—allegations, not evidence. These complaints, tied to Duterte’s arrest, are political vengeance dressed up as law. The JBC must not be fooled.
Next, the “conflict of interest” charge is laughable. Critics argue Remulla’s DOJ role compromises his ability to investigate executives as Ombudsman. On the contrary: his insider knowledge of executive machinations makes him uniquely equipped to dismantle corruption. The Ombudsman’s mandate under Article XI, Section 13(1) is to act without fear or favor—exactly what Remulla proved by taking on Duterte.
Finally, the nepotism angle—pointing to his brother, DILG Secretary Jonvic Remulla—is a desperate ploy. De Castro v. JBC (2010) permits the JBC to consider family ties only when they clearly undermine independence. No evidence suggests Jonvic would sway Ombudsman investigations. This is a distraction, not a dealbreaker.

III. SWOT Blitz: When Weaknesses Become Weapons

Category	Pro-Remulla Spin
Strengths	He prosecuted a sitting president—what bolder proof of independence? His DOJ record is a war cry against corruption, from Duterte to drug lords.
Weaknesses	Pending cases? They’re the cost of battling a rotten system. Only a true reformer draws such fire.
Opportunities	Appointing Remulla buries impunity for good. His leadership could forge the Ombudsman into an anti-corruption colossus.
Threats	The real danger? Letting Imee Marcos’ vendettas veto the brave, handing dynasties a free pass to plunder.

The sanctimonious outrage over “pending cases” is pure hypocrisy. Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales faced 42 unresolved complaints when appointed in 2011, yet she became a paragon of integrity. Remulla’s complaints are not a blemish—they’re proof he’s rattled the corrupt. The JBC must not let political noise drown out this truth.

Voice of Authority

“Remulla’s enemies brand his pending cases a flaw; I call them proof he’s shaking the corrupt to their core. Only the guilty fear him.”
—Kweba ng Katarungan, August 2025.

Provocative Tweets

Tweet #1

Pending cases don’t disqualify—they prove you’re a threat to the corrupt. Remulla’s the Ombudsman we need. #JusticeForReform

Tweet #2

Imee Marcos’ complaints are a political hit, not law. JBC, don’t let dynasties kill integrity. #RemullaForOmbudsman

Tweet #3

Remulla jailed Duterte. Now they want him out? That’s not a scandal—it’s a resume. #OmbudsmanWatchdog

IV. Battle Plan: Seizing the Narrative

To the JBC: Shortlist Remulla or risk canonizing a complaint-as-disqualification doctrine—a jackpot for every corrupt politician. Re: JBC Shortlist for Ombudsman (G.R. No. 197002, 2011) empowers the JBC to dismiss baseless complaints. Wield that power now.

To Remulla: Demand a public hearing. Force accusers like Senator Marcos to testify under oath, exposing their motives. Submit a bulletproof rebuttal—certified dockets, recusals, and endorsements from legal luminaries—to obliterate the allegations.

To the Media: Stop peddling Imee Marcos’ complaints as “legal analysis.” Your job is to probe, not parrot, dynastic agendas. Demand the JBC publish its vetting timeline and criteria.

V. Final Stand: A Legacy on the Line

Behind closed doors, the JBC faces a defining choice: elevate a reformer or bow to Marcos family drama. The Ombudsman’s chair awaits. Will it hold a titan who prosecuted a president—or a puppet dancing to dynastic tunes?

This editorial is a rallying cry for the JBC to champion justice over politics. Remulla’s bid is a chance to forge an Ombudsman who fears no one. Will the JBC rise to the challenge?

Worst-Case Scenario Infographic

If Remulla Falls, Corruption Wins

Duterte’s Allies: Evade justice for past sins.
Dynasties: A tame Ombudsman means unchecked power.
Corrupt Officials: Impunity thrives under a weak watchdog.
The Filipino People: Lose a champion who could restore faith in governance.

Red Lines: 4 Legal Pillars the JBC Cannot Ignore

De Castro v. JBC (G.R. No. 191002, 2010): The JBC verifies constitutional qualifications, not subjective ideals.
Dela Torre v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 1996): Moral turpitude requires proven depravity, not accusations. And, pending complaints require final conviction to disqualify.
Re: JBC Shortlist for Ombudsman (2011): The JBC can reject frivolous complaints.
Gutierrez v. House of Representatives (2011): Integrity demands substantiated claims, not rumors.