AT A GLANCE
- Former senator Ramon 'Bong' Revilla Jr. was granted bail after nearly six months in detention, facing malversation and graft cases related to flood control corruption.
- The Office of the Ombudsman has filed a motion for Associate Justice Ronald Moreno to inhibit himself from the case, citing concerns of partiality and unfair treatment of prosecution witnesses during hearings.
- The Ombudsman highlighted instances of Moreno's alleged prejudgment and disrespectful questioning toward witnesses, suggesting his behavior undermined the impartiality expected from a judge.
Former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr., one of the biggest names tied to the flood control corruption, spent only nearly six months in detention.
He is facing malversation and graft cases, but was able to temporarily leave the New Quezon City Jail in Payatas after the Sandiganbayan 3rd Division granted his bail petition. Of the three justices, only the division chairperson Associate Justice Karl Miranda voted to deny Revilla’s plea.
Associate Justices Ronald Moreno and Fritz Bryn Anthony delos Santos voted in Revilla’s favor.
Now, the Office of the Ombudsman, who’s prosecuting the former senator, wants Moreno to inhibit or leave the case. Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla confirmed to Rappler on Tuesday, August 25, that they filed a motion for voluntary inhibition.
“While the prosecution does not impute bad faith or improper motive on the part of the Honorable Associate Justice Ronald B. Moreno, there are, however, circumstances in the present case which reasonably give rise to a perception of partiality and cast doubt upon his ability to act with complete impartiality,” said the 69-page motion dated August 20.
Inhibition is the act of asking a judge or justice to desist from handling a case or overseeing proceedings.
The motion for inhibition must be based on a just and valid case, but the “mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough basis for them to inhibit, especially when the charge is groundless,” said the Supreme Court in the Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc. case.
“[Inhibition] is done when a judge has a conflict of interest (e.g., family relationships, prior professional relationships) or a perceived one. It’s done not just for fairness to the parties but to also protect the perception of the court as fair and impartial,” constitutional law expert and University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law associate dean Paolo Tamase earlier told Rappler.
So in this case, what are the Ombudsman’s reasons in asking Moreno recuse himself from the case?
‘Unfair, unreasonable’
The Ombudsman said Moreno’s alleged partiality was in display not only during the case’s pre-trial or preliminary proceedings, but also during the prosecution’s presentation of evidence in Revilla’s bail hearing. The investigative body said the associate justice made remarks that showed prejudgment and “disrespecting attitude” toward the prosecution witnesses.
“In particular, Justice Moreno’s demeanor and questions to the witnesses were apparently unfair, unreasonable, disrespectful, and lacking in judicial restraint. His line of questioning and his public pronouncements also show that he might have already prejudged not only the credibility of the witnesses but also the credibility of their respective testimonies,” said the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman cited a specific instance where Moreno was already questioning the credibility of state witness, former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, on April 17, 2026, even before he could be put on the witness stand.
Moreno already prejudged that it was Bernardo who allegedly benefited from the flood control corruption scheme in DPWH, according to the body, and that Bernardo allegedly fooled former DPWH district engineer Henry Alcantara.
“Pero wala ka ngang ebidensya, wala naman [siyang ipinakita]. Hindi kaya nabukulan ka lang?” Moreno asked Alcantara during the latter’s presentation as witness. (But you don’t have evidence. Is it not that you just didn’t get your share?)
The Ombudsman also noted how Moreno remained “cynical” toward Alcantara despite the engineer’s admission of his complicity in the DPWH corruption scheme and his willingness to testify under the Witness Protection Program. The body said the justice’s remarks toward Alcantara were alarming and showed a lack of “cold neutrality of an impartial judge.”
According to the Ombudsman, Moreno’s stance also continued during the presentation of Bernardo as state witness.
“While the prosecution recognizes that judges can, and should, ask clarificatory questions if needed, the kind of questions that are consistently propounded on the hapless witnesses are hardly clarificatory in nature. Rather, they are mostly cross-examination questions aimed towards discrediting the witness and dismantling the prosecution’s case,” said the motion.
On Revilla
Moreno’s alleged partiality was also evident, according to the Ombudsman, in his remarks related to Revilla.
The former senator was charged in the case because he allegedly acted as a proponent in the flood control project or a politician whose job is to ensure that a specific DPWH project will be funded by the national budget. In exchange, Revilla allegedly got a commission or alleged kickback from the scheme.
According to the Ombudsman, Moreno’s prejudgment showed when he reiterated that during the bail hearings there was no evidence showing that the deliveries were made to Revilla. Moreno also allegedly had a premature conclusion that the “payments” did not come from public funds.
“So, the money came not from the coffers of the government but from the contractors?” Moreno asked Alcantara.
“I agree, your Honors. Yes, your Honors,” the former DPWH engineer said in response.
In the resolution granting Revilla’s bail, the document mentioned that the funds allegedly received by Revilla did not come from public coffers “to be considered as ‘public funds’ under the definition of the crime of malversation.”
Moreno’s alleged partiality also showed during an inquiry involving Bernardo, said the Ombudsman. The justice clarified with the former DPWH undersecretary that Revilla’s “only participation” in the inclusion of the project was to do follow-ups with Bernardo himself.
“So that is the only participation of Senator Revilla that you are blaming Senator Revilla that he was the one who caused the inclusion of this project in the GAA (General Appropriations Act), in the General Appropriation Act of 2025?” said Moreno.
“Your Honor…[interrupted],” said Bernardo.
“Justice Moreno’s active questioning crossed the line from being merely clarificatory into acting like a defense counsel attempting to shield accused Revilla from liability,” said the Ombudsman.
Rude to other witnesses too?
The Ombudsman also noted Moreno’s remarks against the grant of immunity to prosecution witnesses Alcantara, Bernardo, Engineer Gerard Opulencia, and SYMS Construction owner Sally Santos.
“Kung sino ‘yong gumawa, I hate to say them, but I am very passionate about this. Kung sino ‘yong mga gumawa ng katarantaduhan, binigyan ng immunity, tapos paano ‘to? Makakawala na by just, what? Returning a little amount which they gained out of these illegal transactions,” said Moreno.
(The alleged perpetrators, I hate to say them, but I am very passionate about this. The alleged perpetrators were given immunity, so what now? They will get out of it by just what?)
It also mentioned Moreno’s “intimidating” language against witness, Engineer John Carlo Rivera, calling him a “disgrace.” The Ombudsman said even Santos did not escape Moreno’s “harsh questioning.”
“Tell me, who you were dealing with,” Moreno told Santos.
“Sa loob po ng DP? (Inside the DPWH?)” the contractor replied.
“Ah, hindi po. Sa labas. Puwede [rin] sa labas. Mag-i-insultuhan tayo [rito]?” said the justice. (No, outside. Could be outside. Are we insulting each other here?)
The Ombudsman also raised concerns over the alleged unfair treatment of prosecution witness Genivieve Cuaresma, who testified about the claims flow inside the DPWH’s district office.
“Justice Moreno made unnecessary and unfair remarks such as, “An’ong pakinabang ng testimony mo dito,” “[H]indi ko alam kung nagpapanggap kang alam mo,” and “Ang gulo mong kausap eh,” the Ombudsman said.
(What is the use of your testimony here? I don’t know if you are pretending you know. You are confusing to talk to.)
Lastly, the investigative body also noted the number of questions Moreno asked the witnesses during the bail hearings, which was allegedly “more than the questions of the lawyers of all the seven accused individuals combined.”
“In [Engineer] Alcantara’s testimony, Justice Moreno asked approximately 250 questions, while all the defense lawyers asked only about 190 questions. In Usec. Bernardo’s testimony, he asked around 290 questions, while the number of questions asked by the defense lawyers was, more or less, 210. In Sally Santos’ testimony, around 430 questions were asked by Justice Moreno, while the defense lawyers only asked about 170 questions,” said the Ombudsman. – Rappler.com
How does this make you feel?