‘Probe Ombudsman for insinuating Sandiganbayan corruption’

Former Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) president and law dean Judd Roy in a virtual interview over dzRH on August 3, 2026. (Screengrab via DZRH News Television / YouTube)

Former Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) president and law dean Judd Roy called for Ombudsman Jesus Crispin ‘Boying’ Remulla’s investigation for insinuating corruption on the part of justices who granted bail to former senator Ramon ‘Bong’ Revilla, Jr.

Revilla is facing a malversation case in connection with a P92.8-million non-existent flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.

“So, dapat maging maingat na maingat tayo dito sa mga pinapakita niyang si Ombudsman. ‘Yang sinasabing tinatrabaho, paratang ‘yan ah. It’s an accusation of corruption,” Roy said in an interview Monday over radio station dzRH’s Dos Por Dos.

“Eh dapat, siya’y tanungin at idisiplina kung ‘yan ang tinutukoy niya. O ‘di kaya ilabas niya kung ano ba ‘yan. Bakit siya nagtataka?” he said.

The former PLM president-law dean was referring to the Ombudsman’s reaction to the Sandigan’s grant of bail to Remulla, who said: “We predicted this to happen. Alam naman namin ito… Meron talaga mangyayari na mukhang natrabaho, na magkaroon ng grant of bail.”

Remulla added that he would soon talk to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo about the decision.

Roy said by saying he would talk to the chief justice about the Sandiganbayan decision to free Revilla, Remulla is effectively working on the case.

“May sinabi si Ombudsman na para bang tinatrabaho ‘yung korte. Ngayon, hindi ko alam kung ano ang ibig niyang sabihin pero ang dinig ko doon parang lumalabas na nasusuhulan ‘yung korte,” he recalled.

“Tapos ang sabi niya kakausapin pa niya si Chief Justice tungkol dito. Eh pati siya tinatrabaho niya rin? Dapat siguro hindi ganoon ‘yung mga pahayag ‘nung Ombudsman. Ito’y isang independienteng office at mataas ang katungkulan,” he said.

“Oh, eh isa lang ang nakuha niyang boto. Ang sinasabi parati nahihirapan daw siya, kasi ‘yung mga abogadong kalaban nila mga bayaran at matataas ang bayad, magagaling ganoon,” he said.

However, the former law dean said based on his experience as a long-time practitioner, a lawyer loses his case if it is weak.

“I’m sorry to say, pero ang karanasan ko natatalo ka sa korte ‘pag ang kaso mo bulok. ‘Pag mahina ang kaso mo, talo ka. ‘Wag mong sasabihing, pupunta ka doon, tapos sasabihin mo bayaran ‘yung referee? Anong klase ‘yun?” he emphasized.

Roy added that he is wondering why Remulla, being a veteran lawyer, is making statements like those he uttered about Revilla’s bail grant.

‘Batikang abogado ‘yan si Boying Remulla. Kaya nagtataka ako bakit ganyan ‘yung pahayag. Hindi maganda,” he said.

Not the end of case vs. Revilla

Meanwhile, Malacañang on Monday rejected claims that the Sandiganbayan’s decision granting bail to Revilla reflected a weak anti-corruption campaign, saying the ruling should not be interpreted as evidence that prosecutors failed or that the administration practices selective justice.

Speaking at a Palace press briefing, Castro said the grant of bail only provides Revilla temporary liberty while the trial continues and does not diminish the government’s case against him.

“Former Senator Bong Revilla is not the only respondent. He is only the one who was given the opportunity to post bail for temporary liberty. The others involved were not granted their petitions for bail. Let us not forget that,” Castro pointed out.

Castro was responding to criticisms from advocacy groups, including SPARK and KAPATID, following the anti-graft court’s decision to allow Revilla to post bail.

The groups noted that the ruling raised questions about the strength of the government’s anti-corruption cases and highlighted what they described as unequal treatment in the justice system.

The Palace dismissed assertions that the decision indicated shortcomings by the Office of the Ombudsman and state prosecutors.

“We cannot say that the Office of the Ombudsman and the state prosecutors did not do enough. This is not a gauge to conclude that they are not doing their jobs,” Castro said.

She noted that the proceedings on the bail petition are separate from the main trial and stressed that the Ombudsman has maintained it possesses strong evidence against the accused.

“This is not the end because this only concerns the petition for bail… the Office of the Ombudsman says it has strong evidence. Let us allow the state prosecutors to do their work,” she added.