Remulla Met the ICC in His Pajamas — And Somehow That’s the Real Crime?

Witness Protection or Treason? The ₱805 Billion Distraction Edition

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — March 3, 2026

MGA ka-kweba, what fresh hell is this? In the grand circus of Philippine politics—where every private conversation is suddenly a conspiracy and every public servant a villain until proven otherwise—Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla has committed the unpardonable sin of admitting he met two International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel at his own Makati residence in 2025.

According to the Manila Bulletin report, Remulla could not recall the exact date but confirmed the meeting was arranged by former senator Antonio Trillanes IV. They discussed protection for Filipino witnesses in the ICC case against former president Rodrigo Duterte. “Bakit hindi?” he asked. Why not, when “ang nakasalalay dito buhay ng mga testigo”?

But the outrage machine has fused this admission with the explosive claims by 18 former marines of delivering ₱805 billion in kickbacks.

**The Pajama Inquisition: Heresy, Treason, and Other Bedtime Stories**
*“Tuck in your witnesses, say your prayers, and trust no one in silk”*

Unpacking the Smoke and Mirrors

Two issues are being deliberately conflated: (a) the 2025 meeting between then-DOJ Secretary Remulla and ICC representatives, and (b) the P805 billion “bagman” allegations. The meeting is the red herring designed to prop up the far more serious—but far shakier—financial claims.

Why Remulla Wasn’t Breaking Any Law — He Was Literally Following It

Remulla’s actions were not only permissible but arguably his statutory duty. As then-Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was responsible for the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (Republic Act No. 6981). Protecting Filipino witnesses is a clear mandate under this law.

This duty is reinforced by Article II, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution—the state’s primordial obligation to protect life, liberty, and property.

The Supreme Court in Pangilinan v. Cayetano (G.R. No. 238875, 2021) acknowledged the legal reality: despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the ICC retains jurisdiction over acts committed while the country was still a state party. Remulla operated squarely within this complex legal space.

Turning the Scalpel on Levi Baligod and His P805 Billion Fantasy Squad

The spotlight now turns on Atty. Levi Baligod and his 18 clients. Their evidence? A single, collective affidavit with stories “pinag-tagpi-tagpi” (patched together). Remulla correctly demands 18 individual sworn statements—a fundamental requirement of due process under Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The P805 billion figure is satirical gold: delivered by 18 ex-marines from flood control projects with zero documentary evidence? Logistically absurd and politically convenient.

If these claims were fabricated for destabilization, Baligod and his clients face serious consequences under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code for perjury. The same lawyer quick to invoke Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Republic Act No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) against others should remember that perjury cuts both ways.

Who Benefits? A Cynic’s Guide to the Backroom Agendas

Antonio Trillanes IV plays his familiar role as the ICC’s “fixer.” The ICC itself opts for informal backchannel meetings rather than official diplomatic channels. The Marcos administration performs a delicate dance of public non-cooperation with the ICC while privately finding the Duterte case useful for political management.

Analyzing the Scandal’s Legal and Political Trajectory

Remulla’s best move is voluntary inhibition from any investigation involving the 18 marines. The P805 billion probe will likely collapse at the preliminary investigation stage for lack of probable cause, as required by precedents like Allado v. Diokno.

The real stakes are the erosion of public trust, strain on the ruling coalition, and the dangerous precedent of unsubstantiated affidavits paralyzing government.

Call to Action

The 18 marines must testify publicly, under oath, and produce actual evidence for their claims. The Ombudsman, like all public officials, must be judged by evidence and law, not rumor and political innuendo. The rule of law remains the only firewall between order and chaos.

This cynic recommends a full Senate inquiry—not to persecute Remulla, but to investigate the origins and funding of what appears to be a coordinated plot to destabilize the government through the legal system.

In the Kweba, we call it straight: Remulla was doing his job protecting witnesses. The rest is noise.

While the clowns keep juggling affidavits and headlines, the law keeps score.
Guess who’s still standing when the tent folds?
— Kweba ni Barok.

Always has been.