FACT CHECK: Ombudsman Remulla still in office, not dismissed by Supreme Court

2026-03-09 - 08:34

Claim: The Supreme Court removed Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla from office after he admitted to hosting a meeting with former senator Antonio Trillanes IV, retired police general Nicolas Torre III, and two International Criminal Court (ICC) investigators in 2025 — while he was still justice secretary — regarding matters linked to witnesses in the ICC case against former president Rodrigo Duterte. Rating: FALSE Why we fact-checked this: The YouTube video containing the claim has 15,000 views, 1,400 likes, and 175 comments as of writing. It was uploaded to a YouTube channel that claims to be a news outlet, which has 169,000 subscribers. The title in the video states: “Nakarma na! Lagot! Boying, walang takas? Tanggal na sa pwesto? Matinding utos ng Korte Suprema pirmado?” (Karma has caught up! You’re in trouble! Boying, no escape? Removed from his post? A strict order from the Supreme Court has been signed?) In the video, a narrator claims that Remulla violated the law by coordinating with investigators from the ICC, arguing that such contact is illegal because the Philippines has already withdrawn from the tribunal. The allegation is tied to claims made by 18 individuals identifying themselves as former Marines, who accused several public figures of receiving bags or suitcases of cash. They also alleged that Trillanes received $2 million from former lawmaker Zaldy Co to supposedly bribe ICC investigators. The facts: Remulla remains in office, and there are no reports of his impeachment or any official proceedings to remove him. Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Ombudsman can only be removed through impeachment for specific offenses, not by a Supreme Court decision. Article XI, Section 2 states: “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.” The impeachment process must be initiated by the House of Representatives. While the Supreme Court can review legal issues involving the Office of the Ombudsman or its officials, its authority does not extend to dismissing the Ombudsman through a court order. ‘Politically motivated’: Remulla has dismissed allegations of ICC bribery as politically motivated. On March 5, Remulla said the claims were intended to create a political tipping point and push a branch of the military to “rise up in arms.” (READ: Remulla: ICC bribery claims ‘political’) The alleged ex-Marines claimed they delivered cash to Trillanes to partly fund the ICC investigation into Duterte and that they acted as security escorts for supposed ICC personnel. Trillanes has denied the allegations and filed complaints against the “ex-Marines” and other personalities. ‘Nothing wrong’: Remulla has confirmed that he met with ICC personnel in 2025 to discuss witness protection for the pre-trial investigation into Duterte’s crimes against humanity case. “I said, I talked to them (ICC personnel). So what?” Remulla said in Filipino. “It was after that incident (Duterte’s arrest), when we talked to them, that was in 2025, after March.” ICC assistant to counsel Kristina Conti said the ICC has to cooperate with governments, and that Remulla might have been asked by the ICC in his official capacity as then-justice secretary. Under Article 87(5) of the Rome Statute, non-member states like the Philippines can provide ad hoc assistance to the ICC. Conti also noted that Remulla did not disclose the details of the discussion. “So I would say it’s a very narrow line that he’s treading on. Because he’s not violating confidentiality of what was disclosed, just affirming that it happened,” the ICC assistant to counsel explained. (READ: No, there’s nothing wrong with Remulla’s meeting with ICC) For his part, Trillanes said these allegations are being used to create the narrative that ICC investigators in Duterte’s case are allegedly corrupt. Asked about the former soldiers’ allegations, the ICC prosecution clarified that it conducted its investigations into Duterte’s case independently, using funds from the court. – Marjuice Destinado/Rappler.com Marjuice Destinado is a senior political science student at Cebu Normal University (CNU) and an alumna of the Aries Rufo Journalism Fellowship of Rappler for 2025.