MANILA, Philippines — The legal battle surrounding former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.’s controversial bail has taken another major turn, with the Office of the Ombudsman formally seeking the inhibition of one of the Sandiganbayan justices who voted to temporarily free him.
Ombudsman prosecutors filed a motion seeking the inhibition of Associate Justice Ronald Moreno from Revilla’s pending malversation case, according to an Inquirer report published Tuesday, August 25.
Moreno was one of two members of the Sandiganbayan Third Division who voted to grant Revilla ₱1 million bail in connection with the alleged ₱92.8-million “ghost” flood-control project in Pandi, Bulacan.
The development dramatically raises the stakes in a case that has already triggered questions over how the anti-graft court evaluated the government’s evidence—and why Revilla obtained bail while several of his co-accused did not.
Ombudsman Targets Justice Who Voted for Bail
The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed the motion against Moreno on Monday, August 24, according to a member of the prosecution team quoted by Inquirer.
The exact legal grounds and detailed arguments contained in the prosecution’s inhibition motion were not disclosed in the initial report.
Moreno and Associate Justice Fritz Bryn Anthony Delos Santos formed the 2-1 majority that granted Revilla’s bail.
Third Division Chairperson Associate Justice Karl Miranda dissented and voted to keep Revilla detained.
The Ombudsman had already been reviewing court records to determine whether there was possible bias surrounding the bail decision.
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla previously questioned why Revilla was granted temporary liberty while his co-accused remained behind bars, despite what the prosecution views as interconnected evidence.
Why the Sandiganbayan Granted Revilla Bail
The controversy began when the Sandiganbayan Third Division issued a 107-page resolution on July 31, ruling that prosecutors had failed, for purposes of the bail proceedings, to establish that the evidence of Revilla’s guilt was strong.
That finding is important: granting bail does not mean Revilla has been cleared of the charges.
His criminal case remains pending, and the prosecution may continue presenting evidence when the case proceeds to trial.
The majority said prosecutors had not sufficiently demonstrated how Revilla personally facilitated the inclusion of the Pandi flood-control project in the national budget.
The court also noted that the alleged kickbacks linked to Revilla were supposedly sourced from private contractors rather than directly from government funds—a distinction the majority considered significant to the malversation charge.
Moreno, in a separate concurring opinion, reportedly pointed to evidentiary gaps that he believed weakened the government’s case against Revilla at the bail stage.
Dissenting Justice Saw the Case Differently
Miranda strongly disagreed.
In his dissent, the Third Division chair argued that whether the money allegedly received by Revilla came from private contractors was not necessarily decisive if prosecutors could prove that he participated in a conspiracy involving the alleged illegal disbursement of government funds.
“The private character of the money Revilla allegedly received does not negate the existence of conspiracy,” Miranda wrote, according to earlier reporting.
That disagreement between the justices has become one of the central legal fault lines in the case.
What Revilla Is Accused Of
Revilla faces a malversation of public funds case stemming from an alleged flood-control anomaly in Pandi, Bulacan.
Prosecutors allege that approximately ₱76.9 million was illegally disbursed for a purported ₱92.8-million Department of Public Works and Highways project and that Revilla participated in the scheme in exchange for an alleged 25-percent “commitment fee” or kickback.
Revilla has repeatedly denied the accusations.
During earlier bail hearings, former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo testified about alleged infrastructure allocations and kickback arrangements involving public-works projects.
However, the Sandiganbayan majority found that critical portions of the prosecution’s allegations against Revilla were not sufficiently supported by independent evidence for purposes of determining whether his guilt was strong enough to deny bail.
Why Revilla’s Bail Became So Controversial
Revilla’s treatment immediately stood out because the two justices who granted his bail—Moreno and Delos Santos—denied the bail applications of his co-accused.
Rappler reported that Miranda voted to deny all the bail petitions, while Moreno and Delos Santos voted to grant Revilla’s request but deny those of the other defendants.
Revilla’s co-accused include former DPWH officials implicated in the alleged scheme.
The differing treatment prompted questions from critics and from the Ombudsman itself about whether the evidence justified giving Revilla provisional liberty while keeping the others detained.
The Palace, however, has rejected suggestions that Revilla’s release represented political favoritism, stressing that the Sandiganbayan is part of an independent judiciary and that the executive branch does not decide whether an accused person should be granted bail.
Ombudsman Is Already Trying to Reverse the Bail Ruling
The inhibition request is not the prosecution’s only challenge.
The Office of the Ombudsman has also asked the Sandiganbayan to reconsider and reverse the decision granting Revilla bail.
Prosecutors argue that the court failed to give sufficient weight to evidence that allegedly showed Revilla’s participation in the illegal disbursement of public funds.
The Ombudsman maintains that the prosecution’s theory cannot simply be dismissed because the alleged kickback money ultimately received by Revilla may have originated from private contractors.
The Sandiganbayan has yet to finally resolve the underlying criminal case.
The Bigger Question Now
The motion to inhibit Moreno pushes the controversy beyond the question of whether Revilla deserved bail.
It now puts the composition and perceived impartiality of the court handling one of the country’s most closely watched corruption cases directly under scrutiny.
If the prosecution succeeds in removing Moreno from further participation, the makeup of the Third Division handling subsequent proceedings involving Revilla could change.
But an inhibition motion is itself only a request. The filing does not establish that Moreno committed wrongdoing or acted improperly, and no such conclusion should be drawn unless supported by a court ruling or evidence.
For now, Revilla remains out on bail while facing the malversation case, prosecutors continue trying to overturn his provisional release, and the Sandiganbayan must confront a new question:
Will one of the justices who helped free Revilla continue to sit in judgment of the case—or will the Ombudsman’s latest move reshape the legal battle entirely?
Leave a Reply