Donate

KWEBA ni BAROK

Questions Carpio-Morales Suspiciously Avoids Answering

Published by

Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

on

Questions Carpio-Morales Suspiciously Avoids Answering

By Hail to the Chair — November 3, 2025

IN November 2016, then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales rendered a decision in an administrative case against evangelist and traditional politician Joel Villanueva, who was elected to his first term in the Senate earlier in May 2016.  

The decision found Villanueva guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service, over alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund when he was a party-list representative of the CIBAC (Citizens’s Battle Against Corruption) in Congress back in 2008.

CIBAC is seen by many as the party-list group supported by the members of the Christian congregation operated by his father Edgardo “Brother Eddie” Villanueva, who is himself a traditional politician.  After two miserably unsuccessful attempts at running for President in 2004 and 2010 despite the constitutional ban against the union of church and state, Eddie Villanueva settled for a party-list seat in the House of Representatives of Congress.  Perhaps the politician in the evangelist realized that it is better to be in power, even in just a part of the entire political pie, than out of it.  

Why the Commission on Elections allowed CIBAC in the political arena despite its obvious ties to and dependency on Villanueva’s church is the stuff for another story. 

The elder Villanueva heads the Villanueva political dynasty that is well-entrenched in Bulacan.  The dynasty also runs a television broadcast media outlet. 

Going back to Joel Villanueva, because decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are immediately executory, Morales directed then Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III to implement it.  The Senate refused to do so, saying that only the Senate can decide the fate of its members.  Meanwhile, Villanueva quietly filed a motion for reconsideration. 

Since then, nothing was heard of about the matter.  Not even a whimper came from Morales. 

In October 2025, the new Ombudsman, Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla, took steps to enforce the Morales decision by announcing his plan to meet with Senate President Vicente Sotto III, another traditional politician and head of a political dynasty.  

Soon after Remulla made his announcement, Villanueva revealed for the first time to the public that in February 2019, then Ombudsman Samuel Martires, who succeeded Morales in August 2018, issued a resolution granting the motion for reconsideration filed by Villanueva.  

That revelation took Remulla completely by surprise.   It is no wonder that Remulla called the Martires resolution “a surprise decision.”  

Nobody, not even the media, knew about Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration, much less of the Martires resolution granting the same.  If Villanueva was lawfully cleared of liability by Martires as early as February 2019, why did this pompous, scripture citing politician keep his exoneration a secret from the public for six years?  Was Villanueva afraid that his exoneration is based on flimsy grounds?  Maybe Villanueva kept it a secret in order to get sympathy votes from the followers in his daddy’s church.

As for Martires, why did it take him six long years to exonerate Villanueva?  

Like Villanueva, Martires kept silent about his resolution exonerating the preacher-politician.  Considering, however, that Martires is fond of keeping matters of public interest a secret from the taxpayers who paid for his salary as  do-nothing Ombudsman for seven long, wasted years, Martires’ silence on Villanueva’s exoneration is expected from him.  

Last October 30, a columnist in another newspaper called Martires “the paladin of corruption.”  Interested readers may access the article online.  

From what appears in Martires’ resolution, Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration was filed in November 2016.  Withal, there are nagging questions that Morales must answer, but which she conveniently and cleverly dodges.  

As the Ombudsman from 2011 to 2019, wasn’t Morales aware of the motion for reconsideration filed by Villanueva in November 2016?   Morales should know about it, because as Ombudsman, she is given a monthly report of all criminal and administrative cases, including their titles and docket numbers, pending in her office.  

Being the Ombudsman, Morales is obligated to read those reports.  If she read them, Morales would have easily spotted the motion for reconsideration and acted on it within the reglementary period provided under the rules of procedure obtaining in her office.  If Morales is unaware of it, she did not do her homework.  

So, did she or did she not read those reports?  The public deserves a categorical answer from Morales. 

The predicament Morales is facing is exacerbated by the zeal by which she attempted to enforce her decision in November 2016, vis-à-vis her suspicious silence and inaction between November 2016, when Villanueva filed his motion for reconsideration, until her retirement as Ombudsman in July 2018.  

Whatever her answer is, Morales should also be put in the radar of Remulla and his investigators.  Morales can be held liable for her reckless inaction, whether she read the reports to her or not.   

At the moment, it seems that all Morales has to say is that Remulla should look at the record of the Villanueva case.  What’s the matter with her?  Why can’t she just answer the questions straight to the point?  Has she completely forgotten about the mess she created, which triggered the current controversy involving both Martires and Villanueva?

It will be recalled that in May 2019, Morales was denied entry to Hong Kong by communist Chinese airport authorities, apparently because in March that year, she and former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario filed a criminal case against Chinese President Xi Jinping before the International Criminal Court (ICC).  In her trip to Hong Kong, Morales probably forgot about the ICC case she earlier filed, possibly in view of the same forgetfulness she is now exhibiting regarding the Villanueva case.  ■

Hail to the Chair

Leave a comment

Hello,

I’m Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

Let’s connect

Join the fun!

Stay updated with our latest tutorials and ideas by joining our newsletter.

Recent posts