‘Secret decision’ reversing Villanueva dismissal bared
The Office of the Ombudsman on Thursday released the copy of the controversial “secret decision” to reverse an order to dismiss Sen. Joel Villanueva from public office over the alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in 2008 when he was still a member of the House of Representatives.
The reversal of the dismissal was contained in a 10-page order signed in 2019 by then Ombudsman Samuel Martires, who critics called out for not making it available to the public back then.
His successor, Jesus Crispin Remulla, who was unaware of the six-year-old “surprise secret decision,” vowed to release it in public, fulfilling his promise on Thursday.
He had earlier said that he would ask the Senate to implement the November 2016 dismissal order by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
‘No adequate evidence’
In his order, Martires said there was “no adequate evidence on record” showing that Villanueva was actually involved in the alleged embezzlement of the P9.7 million of his PDAF, which was popularly known as the congressional pork barrel fund.
Villanueva, then a representative of the Citizens’ Battle Against Crime party list, or Cibac, was slapped with administrative and criminal charges over the alleged misuse of his PDAF funds for a nonexistent project in Compostela Valley province.
At that time, the government was going after those involved in the P10-billion pork barrel scam allegedly masterminded by businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, who created bogus nongovernmental organizations to which were transferred lawmakers’ PDAF in exchange for kickbacks. (See related story on Page A4 )
The administrative charges against Villanueva included grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. These charges would have led to his dismissal from public service, as well as his perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
Villanueva was charged with criminal malversation of public funds, malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents and graft.
Martires said in his 2019 order that there was “cogent basis” to grant the motion for reconsideration filed by Villanueva contesting the earlier findings by Morales.
Martires said the signature of Villanueva that appeared on top of his name in the acceptance reports for the projects using his PDAF were “forged.”
No proof of conspiracy
“In fact, there is no adequate evidence on record showing that Villanueva was actually involved in the embezzlement of the P9,700,000.00 in public funds,” Martires said in his order he signed on Sept. 13, 2019.
In a separate order he signed on Oct. 18, 2019, clearing the criminal charges against Villanueva, he said that the investigators failed to prove the alleged conspiracy to embezzle the public funds between the public officials charged, including Villanueva, and the private respondents.
He then granted Villanueva’s supplemental motion for reconsideration to contest the criminal charges.
His decisions junked both the administrative and criminal charges against Villanueva. Martires also dismissed the charges against the senator’s coaccused.
The resolutions on the administrative and criminal cases against Villanueva, prepared by graft investigator and prosecutor Francisco Alan Molina, were both dated July 31, 2019, but were only signed later by Martires.
The dismissal sought by Morales was referred to the Senate committee on rules, which was then chaired by now Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, who cited a provision in the Ombudsman Act exempting members of Congress from the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority.
According to the Senate legal counsel then, there was no basis to implement the Ombudsman’s order because it was not yet final and executory since the office still has to act on the motion for reconsideration that Villanueva filed.
The Senate legal counsel argued that the alleged offense happened in 2008 but the complaint was filed on Aug. 7, 2015, or “way beyond the one-year period under the Ombudsman Act.”
