Remulla, Romualdez, and the Call That Echoes

Recusal: The Only Way to Silence the Echo

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

THERE are days when Philippine politics hands us a moment so delicate that even the usual fire-and-brimstone feels out of place. Last Thursday was one of those days.

In a public law forum, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla confirmed something many suspected happens behind closed doors: shortly after his appointment — but before he formally took his oath — his old friend and Upsilon Sigma Phi fraternity brother, former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, called him.
Purpose of the call? To explain his side and deny any involvement in the sprawling flood-control corruption scandal now shaking the republic.

Remulla was candid. He took the call “out of respect,” listened, replied “we’ll just follow the evidence,” and that was supposedly that. In a country where silence is the usual reflex, that voluntary disclosure deserves recognition.

Still, candor does not erase optics. And the optics here are terrible.

**When the brod-code hits louder than the penal code.**

1. The Unavoidable Stain: Friendship and Public Trust

No one is accusing Ombudsman Remulla of promising his brod a free pass. He has repeatedly said — publicly, on record — that he will follow the evidence wherever it leads and that he did not accept the post to shield anyone. He has offered a tentative timeline (six to nine months) for possible charges and told Prof. Winnie Monsod, “We’re not letting up.”

Those are the right words.
The lingering question is whether a single pre-appointment phone call from the main subject of a plunder probe plants a seed of doubt that no amount of reassuring language can fully uproot.

In mature democracies the rule is simple: when a prosecutor or anti-graft chief has a close personal relationship with a potential accused, the ethical response is to step aside — at least from that specific strand of the case. Not because you distrust your own integrity, but because the public must never be asked to take your word for it. Perception is half the battle in anti-corruption work.

2. The Ghost in the Room: The Shadow of Upsilon Sigma Phi

Winnie Monsod’s now-famous “I’ll hold you to that” was the voice of a nation that has seen too many “independent” investigations die quiet deaths inside elite networks. When she pressed Remulla for a timeline, she was doing what citizens should always do: demand daylight.

Defenders of fraternity culture quickly cite Marcos and Ninoy — both proud Upsilonians who became mortal enemies. The example is valid: brotherhood does not guarantee collusion. But it also proves the opposite can happen: when the stakes are lower than martial law and assassination, the instinct to protect one’s own can quietly prevail.

The real question for Remulla is not whether he loves his brod more than country — that is an unfair caricature.
The question is whether he is willing to remove every shadow of doubt, even if it costs him personal discomfort.

3. The Scales of (Blind) Justice: A Prescription for Credibility

Martin Romualdez’s decision to place that call was, at minimum, spectacularly tone-deaf. Powerful men rarely feel the need to “explain their side” to incoming investigators unless they believe familiarity might soften the ground.

As for Remulla, let us give credit where it is plainly due:

voluntary disclosure of the call
a public timeline
repeated insistence that evidence — not friendship, not fraternity — will dictate the outcome

Those are not the actions of a man plotting a cover-up.

But transparency alone is not disinfectant enough for this wound. The only way to cauterize doubt is recusal — or at the very least, visible delegation of the Romualdez thread to a deputy or special prosecutor with no overlapping ties. It is not an admission of bias; it is an act of institutional hygiene. Many honorable judges and prosecutors have done exactly that without anyone questioning their personal integrity.

4. The Ripple Effect: A Nation Still Afloat (Barely)

If solid evidence exists and charges are filed — even against the President’s cousin — the Ombudsman’s office will emerge stronger, and the public will exhale a breath we have been holding for decades.

If the case fizzles or drags on indefinitely, the damage will not be to Remulla alone; it will be to every future whistle-blower who wonders whether fraternity, family, or friendship still trumps evidence in this country.

Boying Remulla now holds something more precious than his personal reputation: the fragile hope that the Office of the Ombudsman can still be a fearsome, impartial weapon against corruption.

One phone call does not have to define his tenure.
Refusing to recuse just may.

— Barok