Morales’ Iron Gavel vs. Martires’ Midnight Eraser: The P9.7M Heist That Almost Got Away

Effective Control vs. Effective Cover-Up: A Study in Legal Sleight of Hand

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — November 2, 2025

IN THE hallowed halls of the Office of the Ombudsman, where sunlight is supposed to be the best disinfectant, a secret was buried for six long years. A secret that smells an awful lot like an escape hatch carved out for a sitting senator, complete with forged hinges and a lock picked in the dark. P9.7 million in public funds vanished into ghost projects in Compostela Valley—poof!—like a bad magic trick. The case was closed. The villain was identified. Then, a shadow fell over the file… and when it lifted, the villain was gone.

Enter Conchita Carpio Morales, the iron-fisted guardian of the public purse, who in 2016 dropped two bombshells: a 40-page administrative dismissal and a 55-page criminal graft complaint against then-party-list rep, now-Senator Joel Villanueva. Her verdict? Guilty by effective control. The man who treated his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) like a personal ATM had no business holding public office—ever again.

And then, enter stage right, Samuel Martires, armed with an eraser, a private handwriting expert, and a shocking disregard for the public record. In 2019, he quietly—oh so quietly—reversed both decisions. No press release. No service to complainants. No letter to the Senate. Just a 10-page administrative shrug and a 13-page criminal wave-of-the-hand. The senator? Exonerated. The P9.7 million? Lost to “unscrupulous persons.” The evidence? Apparently, a few shaky signatures.

Mga ka-kweba, this wasn’t a legal review.
This was a legal heist.

The Morales Doctrine: The Gold Standard of Anti-Corruption

Let us begin with the Morales Doctrine—not some airy legal theory, but the moral and legal compass the Ombudsman is supposed to wield like a flaming sword against corruption.

In 2016, Morales didn’t just allege misconduct. She proved it with the cold precision of a coroner.

P9.7 million in PDAF funneled to the Aaron Foundation Phils. Inc. (AFPI)—an nongovernment organization (NGO) capitalized at a laughable P68,000, less than the 20% project cost required by law.
Ghost projects in Compostela Valley: agricultural livelihood programs that existed only on paper.
Local officials—mayors, barangay captains—stood up, swore oaths, and declared the projects to be phantoms. No seeds planted. No tools distributed. No beneficiaries. Just ghosts in the agricultural machine, fueled by public money.

Villanueva didn’t just “recommend” these projects.
He dictated them.
He picked the NGO.
He signed off on the releases.
He treated his PDAF as if it were his own funds—because, under the law, it effectively was.

This is the effective control doctrine, rooted in:

Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) – Section 3(e): causing undue injury through manifest partiality or gross negligence.
The 1987 Constitution, Article XI – public office is a public trust.
Supreme Court in Belgica v. Ochoa (2013) – PDAF is a constitutional abomination that enables precisely this kind of patronage.

Morales didn’t need a smoking gun.
She had substantial evidence—the lower bar for administrative cases—and she met it with sworn testimony, documentary contradictions, and a paper trail of diversion.

Her conclusion?
Dismissal. Lifetime ban. Criminal prosecution.

This wasn’t punishment.
This was justice.

The Martires Maneuver: A Masterclass in Magical Disappearance

And then came Samuel Martires, the Houdini of the Ombudsman.

His entire reversal?
“The signatures were forged.”

That’s it. That’s the trick.

Never mind the local officials who testified under oath.
Never mind the under-capitalized NGO.
Never mind the P9.7 million that vanished into thin air.

No. According to Martires, because a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) report and a private handwriting expert said the signatures on some documents were “obviously forged,” the entire case collapses like a house of cards built by a drunk contractor.

Let’s pause for laughter.

“Forgery is not presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.”
— Conchita Carpio Morales
— The Supreme Court
— 150 years of jurisprudence

But Martires?
He treated a forensic opinion—not even tested in court, not even cross-examined—as gospel truth.
He didn’t confront the mountain of circumstantial evidence.
He didn’t explain how the funds moved without Villanueva’s knowledge.
He didn’t identify the “unscrupulous persons” who allegedly forged the documents and stole the money.

Instead, he performed legal surgery:

“The captain didn’t sink the ship. The ship sank because of unscrupulous deckhands. The captain? Spotless.“

What a remarkable feat.
He exonerated the man who controlled the purse strings, while admitting the purse was emptied.

And the best part?
He did it in secret.

The Smoking Gun: The Secret Reversal

Let’s talk about the secrecy. Because this is where the stench becomes unbearable.

Martires didn’t just reverse Morales.
He buried her decisions.

No service of the resolution to complainants — a direct violation of Administrative Order No. 07, which mandates that parties be served with final resolutions.
No public disclosure — despite the case involving a sitting senator and P9.7 million in public funds.
No announcement upon retirement in 2022 — he just walked away, leaving the file in the dark.

If this was a righteous correction of a wrongful accusation, why hide it?
Why not shout it from the rooftops?
Why not send a triumphant letter to the Senate:

“Senator Villanueva is cleared!”?

Unless, of course, you’re afraid of the sunlight.

This wasn’t oversight.
This was institutional cowardice.
This was a betrayal of public trust.
This was a stain on the Ombudsman’s record that no amount of Windex can remove.

Under RA No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), public officials must act with transparency and accountability.
Martires didn’t just fail—he weaponized opacity.

The Law’s Verdict: Martires’ Decision Had No Legs, No Spine, No Soul

Let’s be clear: Martires’ reversal is legally indefensible.

1. Procedural Breach

Administrative Order No. 07 requires service.
No service = no finality.
The complainants were denied their right to appeal.
The prosecutors were blindsided.
This alone renders the reversal voidable.

2. Substantive Collapse

Even if the signatures were forged—and that’s a big if—Villanueva still exercised effective control.
He picked the projects.
He picked the NGO.
He dictated the releases.
The money moved on his say-so.
Forged signatures don’t erase command responsibility.

3. Precedent Ignored

The Supreme Court in Belgica v. Ochoa didn’t just strike down PDAF—it condemned the system that allowed lawmakers to treat public funds as personal slush funds.
Martires’ decision is a retreat from that crusade.

4. Ethical Bankruptcy

RA 6713 demands public accountability.
Secrecy is the opposite.
Martires didn’t just clear Villanueva—he shielded him.
And in doing so, he shielded every future PDAF abuser who can claim:

“My signature was forged!”

The Final Score: Morales 95, Martires 0

This is not a clash of legal titans.
This is justice vs. whitewash.

Conchita Carpio Morales built her case on evidence, law, and moral clarity.
Samuel Martires dismantled it with a forensic report, a shrug, and a locked drawer.

Call to Action: Ombudsman Remulla, Do Your Job

Praise be to Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, the man who dragged this secret decision into the light.
For the first time in six years, the public knows the truth.

Now, finish the job.

Publicly release the full Martires reversal—every page, every forensic report, every memo.
Allow public scrutiny of the NBI and private expert findings. Let the light in.
Immediately implement Morales’ original dismissal order against Senator Joel Villanueva.
Refer Martires to the proper authorities for investigation under RA 6713 and Administrative Order No. 07 violations.