MANILA – During deliberations on the ad interim appointment of retired Supreme Court Justice Jose Catral Mendoza to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) on October 7, Senator Rodante D. Marcoleta raised concerns over the council’s consideration of Secretary of Justice Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla for the position of Ombudsman.

Marcoleta pointed to the revised rules of the JBC, noting that while pending administrative cases or complaints may disqualify a nominee, the council has discretion to determine whether such complaints are “serious or grave” enough to affect the nominee’s fitness.

“Kung hindi serious, at hindi grave, hindi po siya madi-disqualify,” Marcoleta said, citing the case of Mayor Sebastian Duterte, who filed a disbarment against Remulla.

The senator also questioned Remulla’s public statements regarding the Witness Protection Program, particularly his insistence on restitution as a requirement—a provision not found in law—and his affirmation that the law could sometimes be “bent.”

“These two grounds, Mr. Justice, are not enough for the JBC to consider?” Marcoleta asked Justice Mendoza, who explained that the council considered the complaints but determined, by majority vote, that they did not disqualify Remulla from being included in the shortlist.

“When somebody affirms that sometimes we can bend the law… the JBC took that very lightly, Mr. Justice?” Marcoleta asked. Mendoza replied that the majority had indeed considered it light, though he personally affirmed adherence to the rule of law throughout his judicial career.

The senator suggested that future rules be amended to allow all prospective nominees to the Ombudsman to be subjected to the scrutiny of the Commission on Appointments, a proposal Mendoza said would be reviewed during a three-day workshop set to revise the JBC’s internal rules.

Marcoleta stressed that the public may perceive a serious erosion of confidence if someone who endorsed “bending the law” assumes the office of Ombudsman, which oversees the protection of citizens’ lives, properties, and liberties.

Justice Mendoza acknowledged the concern but underscored his personal commitment to the rule of law based on decades of experience in the judiciary.

The interpellation highlighted continuing debates over JBC rules and the balance between administrative discretion and strict adherence to legal and ethical standards in vetting candidates for top judicial and quasi-judicial positions.