The Witch Hunt Against Boying Remulla: A Thriller of Justice and Vengeance

How a Fearless DOJ Chief Defied a Political Ambush to Claim the Ombudsman’s Throne

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — September 27, 2025

IN THE smoke-filled arena of Philippine politics, where knives are sharpened in the shadows and vendettas masquerade as justice, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla stands tall, bloodied but unbowed. His bid for the Ombudsman post, a constitutional bastion of accountability, has sparked a firestorm—a high-stakes legal thriller where truth battles treachery. Remulla’s recent clearance from the Office of the Ombudsman, dismissing a kidnapping complaint by Senator Imee Marcos, has propelled him onto the Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) shortlist, a hard-won victory against a coordinated smear campaign by political titans desperate to cling to their fading empires. This is no mere appointment process; it’s a saga of ambition, betrayal, and redemption, with Remulla as the embattled hero fighting to restore integrity to a tarnished institution.

Chapter One: The Ambush Begins

The plot begins with a barrage of complaints, each a carefully timed grenade lobbed by Remulla’s foes. Senator Imee Marcos, scion of a dynasty that thrives on spectacle, accused Remulla of kidnapping over the alleged “handover” of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC)—a curious charge, given the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC in 2019. The Office of the Ombudsman, in a rare moment of clarity, dismissed this as baseless, issuing Remulla a clearance now proudly with the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). Yet, the assault didn’t end there. Sebastian “Baste” Duterte, Davao’s vice mayor and heir to his father’s firebrand legacy, filed kidnapping and illegal detention raps, while lawyer Ferdinand Topacio, ever the legal mercenary, piled on with arbitrary detention charges tied to the arrests of ex-Bamban Mayor Alice Guo and Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO)-linked Cassandra Ong. These aren’t legal complaints; they’re political landmines, designed to detonate Remulla’s Ombudsman dreams.

Why now? Why him? The timing reeks of desperation. Remulla, as Department of Justice (DOJ) chief, has been a bulldog against corruption, spearheading probes into POGO scandals and pursuing fugitives like Guo with unrelenting zeal. His enemies—entrenched interests from the Duterte camp and their allies—see a man too effective, too principled, to let ascend to the Ombudsman’s chair. Their complaints are not about justice; they’re about survival, a frantic bid to neutralize a reformer who threatens their gilded cages.

Chapter Two: Fighting Back with Law

Let’s dismantle this charade with the cold steel of law and logic. Remulla’s eligibility is unassailable, grounded in the 1987 Constitution’s Article XI, Section 8, which demands that the Ombudsman be a natural-born Filipino, over 40, a Bar member, and possess “recognized probity and independence.” Check, check, check, and check. Remulla, a seasoned lawyer and public servant, meets these criteria with ease. His DOJ tenure, marked by bold moves against high-profile crooks, screams probity—unlike his accusers, whose motives drip with conflicts of interest banned by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

The Ombudsman’s clearance is the linchpin. Under the JBC’s Revised Rules (JBC No. 2025-01), applicants with pending cases face scrutiny, but the Council weighs the “nature and merit” of complaints. The Ombudsman, an institution of unimpeachable authority per Office of the Ombudsman v. Lilah Ymbong Rodas (G.R. No. 225669, Mar. 23, 2022), dismissed Marcos’s kidnapping claim as flimsy, granting Remulla a clearance that obliterates disqualification arguments. The JBC, bound by its own rules, must give this deference, especially since Remulla submitted the clearance before final deliberation, as permitted. Pending cases? Mere noise. The Constitution’s Article III, Section 14(2) presumes innocence until proven guilty—a principle the Dutertes and Topacio conveniently ignore. These complaints, lacking probable cause and reeking of political vendetta, don’t meet the JBC’s threshold for disqualification. As Limkaichong v. Commission (G.R. Nos. 178831-32, Apr. 1, 2009) implies, unresolved administrative cases don’t bar eligibility absent a final finding of guilt.

Now, turn the spotlight on the accusers. Imee Marcos and Baste Duterte, tethered to a former president under ICC scrutiny, wield their complaints like weapons, violating R.A. 6713‘s ban on using public office for personal gain. Topacio, a lawyer with a history of defending questionable causes, cries foul over Guo’s arrest—yet Remulla’s DOJ followed lawful extradition and detention protocols under R.A. 9851. These are the same protocols that nabbed Guo, a fugitive tied to POGO crimes, proving Remulla’s commitment to justice over politics. Contrast this with his opponents, whose complaints read like scripts from a bad telenovela, crafted to inflame rather than inform. Their actions undermine the Ombudsman’s very purpose—upholding accountability—while Remulla’s record as DOJ chief screams the opposite.

Chapter Three: The Final Stand

What’s next in this legal saga? Remulla’s path is clear: keep the pressure on. He’s already signaled motions to dismiss pending complaints, a move that could bury Baste’s and Topacio’s cases in the same legal graveyard as Marcos’s. The JBC, bound by procedural fairness per Matibag v. Benipayo (G.R. No. 149036, 2002), will likely uphold his shortlisting, given the Ombudsman’s clearance and the flimsy nature of the opposition. The President, with constitutional prerogative under Article XI, Section 9, can then appoint Remulla, a choice courts are loath to overturn absent flagrant JBC rule violations.

His opponents, meanwhile, are running out of moves. Their oppositions to the JBC—likely a flurry of affidavits and recycled allegations—will falter without hard evidence. Marcos’s motion for reconsideration at the Ombudsman is a long shot; Supreme Court doctrine in Ymbong demands grave abuse to reverse such findings, and her ICC-based claim lacks legal legs. Baste’s and Topacio’s complaints, rooted in political theater, face the same fate: preliminary investigations under Rule 112, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure will likely find no probable cause. Judicial challenges, like quo warranto or mandamus, are possible but face a steep climb—courts defer to the JBC and President unless constitutional qualifications are clearly unmet, per Samson v. Caballero (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138, 2009). Impeachment? A fantasy requiring a House majority and Senate conviction, unlikely without a smoking gun.

The political calculus favors Remulla. Malacañang’s support, coupled with his anti-corruption credentials, makes his appointment a near-certainty if he stays on the shortlist. Public perception, though? That’s the wild card. To silence critics, Remulla could recuse himself from DOJ matters touching his accusers or even step down temporarily—an optic win that bolsters his “independence” under R.A. 6770, the Ombudsman Act. But let’s be real: the public, jaded by decades of political circus, will see through the Dutertes’ and Topacio’s ploys. Remulla’s record—clean, aggressive, and principled—will outshine their noise.

The Verdict: Appoint Remulla, Restore Justice

The Ombudsman’s office, meant to be a beacon of accountability, has too long been dimmed by political games. Boying Remulla, battle-scarred but resolute, is the antidote. His clearance from the Ombudsman, backed by constitutional presumption of innocence and JBC rules, dismantles the case for disqualification. His opponents, driven by self-interest and wielding baseless raps, are the real threat to public trust, flouting R.A. 6713‘s ethical mandates. The JBC and President must ignore this political witch hunt and appoint Remulla, a proven anti-corruption warrior, to steer the Ombudsman back to its noble purpose. Anything less would be a surrender to the forces of chaos and corruption. Let justice prevail—or watch the republic burn.