Watchdog groups call for careful discourse on judicial accountability

MANILA, Philippines — Anti-corruption watchdog groups on Tuesday called for greater prudence in public discourse involving the judiciary, stressing that accountability must be pursued without undermining constitutional institutions or judicial independence.

The groups made the statement following recent public remarks attributed to Ombudsman Crispin Remulla regarding acquittal trends in corruption cases, particularly those before the Sandiganbayan.

While acknowledging the Ombudsman’s mandate to prosecute corruption and promote integrity in public service, the groups cautioned that broad public statements about judicial outcomes may be misconstrued and could unintentionally place pressure on courts currently handling sensitive cases.

READ: Ombudsman Remulla says hospitalization rumors ‘fake news’

“These are institutions with distinct constitutional roles,” said People for Truth and Equality (PTE). “The Ombudsman prosecutes, and the courts adjudicate. Both functions are essential, and neither should be diminished by public commentary that may be read as questioning the integrity of the other.”

PTE emphasized that acquittals, like convictions, are part of the judicial process and may result from a variety of factors, including evidentiary requirements and procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution.

“As an advocacy group, we fully support the conviction of those proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt,” said PTE convenor Mike Domingo.

“At the same time, due process and the presumption of innocence are cornerstones of our legal system. These principles protect everyone and must be upheld consistently,” Domingo said.

For its part, the Filipino League Advocates for Good Governance (FLAGG) noted the importance of timing and tone in public statements, especially when courts are actively hearing petitions for bail and conducting trials in high-profile cases involving alleged irregularities in public infrastructure projects.

“Public confidence in the justice system depends not only on outcomes, but on the perception that courts are free to decide cases based solely on law and evidence,” said FLAGG convenor Aio Bautista.

“Any perception that judicial decisions are being publicly evaluated in advance risks creating unnecessary pressure on magistrates,” Bautista said.

FLAGG stressed that the grant of bail, where allowed by law, is a constitutional right and not an indication of impropriety.

Likewise, an acquittal does not necessarily reflect institutional weakness, but may point to issues that should be addressed within the investigative or prosecutorial process.

“The proper response to adverse rulings is to strengthen case preparation, improve investigations, and ensure airtight prosecution,” Bautista added.

“Judicial independence is best protected when all branches and constitutional bodies exercise restraint and mutual respect.”

The groups concluded by reiterating that the fight against corruption is best served when institutions work within their mandates and avoid rhetoric that may erode public trust in the justice system.

“A strong democracy depends on strong institutions,” the groups said.

“Upholding accountability and preserving judicial independence are not competing goals—they are complementary responsibilities.”