Gardiola, 2 other lawmakers face Ombudsman review; Romualdez plunder case nears filing

MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman is evaluating conflict of interest complaints against CWS party-list Rep. Edwin Gardiola and two other lawmakers, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said on Friday. The move signals a renewed push for accountability in the halls of Congress, a step many in the provinces see as long overdue.

Remulla also named Tarlac 2nd District Rep. Cristy Angeles and Pampanga 3rd District Rep. Dong Gonzales as subjects of the review. The complaints focus on lawmakers who also hold contracts with the government, a practice that has stirred unease in rural communities where every peso of public funds matters.

“We’ve been in the process of evaluating our investigations on legislators with conflict of interest, meaning to say, legislators who are also contractors,” Remulla said in a briefing.

The Ombudsman cited Section 3(h) of Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits public officials from having financial interests in transactions they oversee. “It’s just that for the longest time, people took it for granted that they do it because they can,” Remulla added, a sentiment that echoes the frustrations of many Filipinos in the barangays.

What the law says about conflict of interest

Section 3(h) of RA 3019 bars lawmakers from directly or indirectly having financial interests in businesses or contracts where they intervene in their official capacity. This provision is central to the Ombudsman’s case, and it resonates in provinces where infrastructure projects often fuel local economies — and sometimes local corruption.

Rep. Angeles on Friday said she would cooperate with the investigation. “I respect our institutions and will fully cooperate with the Office of the Ombudsman,” she said in a statement. “I will present all necessary explanations and documents in the proper forum.” She also appealed for due process, asking the public to avoid speculation.

Fact-finding vs. preliminary investigation: What’s the difference?

Remulla clarified that the cases against Angeles and Gonzales are under preliminary investigation, meaning the complaints are still being fact-checked. The status of Gardiola’s case remains unclear.

Fact-finding is the first, confidential step. Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano explained that even the officials under investigation are not supposed to know about it. “There are several exceptions, especially when it involves national security or it has risen to the level of national significance,” Clavano said. Only after fact-finding does a preliminary investigation begin, where respondents can submit counter-affidavits.

Cases can only be filed in the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan after the preliminary investigation is resolved. For rural folk, this process can feel like a slow grind, but it is a safeguard against rushed accusations.

Romualdez plunder case ‘very close’ to filing

In a related development, the plunder case against Rep. Martin Romualdez is nearing a critical stage. Remulla said it is “just about ready for preliminary investigation,” meaning it remains in the fact-finding phase. State prosecutors have yet to file charges before the Sandiganbayan, but the anti-graft court has already granted a precautionary hold departure order on Romualdez while the Ombudsman conducts its proceedings.

The complaint alleges a kickback scheme tied to flood control projects, with kickbacks reaching approximately P56 billion. Romualdez has repeatedly denied the accusations, pointing to former appropriations committee chairperson Zaldy Co and Sen. Chiz Escudero as the ones making budget decisions. “How can I be mastermind if Congress doesn’t build projects?” he has asked.

“We’re very close to filing the plunder charges but we still have to cross the T’s and dot some I’s and probably put periods in sentences,” Remulla said. “That’s it, that’s how near it is.”

What this means for local governance

For many in the provinces, these cases are a test of whether the anti-corruption drive reaches beyond Manila. The Ombudsman’s actions, if pursued with resolve, could restore trust in institutions that often feel distant from the daily lives of farmers, fishermen, and small traders. But the process must be transparent and fair, avoiding the trap of political vendettas.

As a nation, we must balance accountability with due process. The law is clear, but its enforcement must be steady and just — not a tool for scoring points. In the end, it is the ordinary Filipino who deserves clean governance, whether in the city or the countryside.