2 hours ago
2
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
August 26, 2026 | 10:42am
MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman has requested the voluntary inhibition of Sandiganbayan Third Division Senior Associate Justice Ronald Moreno from the P92.8 million malversation case involving former Sen. Bong Revilla Jr. and six other accused.
In a 69-page motion filed on August 20, the Ombudsman accused Moreno of crossing the line from objective judicial inquiry to active advocacy, citing "unfair, unreasonable, disrespectful, and lacking in judicial restraint" conduct toward key state witnesses.
The prosecution highlighted the "intimidating and insulting" treatment of its primary witnesses, former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) undersecretary Roberto Bernardo and district engineer Henry Alcantara, during pre-trial and bail hearings.
Citing the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) from the April 17, 2026 hearing, the Ombudsman said that Moreno repeatedly badgered Alcantara, openly mocking his testimony and suggesting he was merely a fool used by Bernardo.
During the hearing, Moreno pressed Alcantara on whether he had direct evidence that Revilla received kickbacks, repeatedly asking, "Hindi kaya nabukulan ka lang?" (Is it not possible you were just duped?) and later remarking, "Sa edad n'yong yan, nabobola pa kayo" (At your age, you are still being fooled).
The prosecution argued that Moreno’s line of questioning was not aimed at clarifying facts but was instead designed to dismantle the state's case and humiliate Alcantara, who is testifying under the government's Witness Protection Program (WPP).
At one point, the Ombudsman said that Moreno told Alcantara: "Kaya nagkanda leche-leche ang Pilipinas" (That is why the Philippines went to ruin), referring to Alcantara's admission of following corrupt practices.
The Ombudsman also detailed the "hostile" questioning of Bernardo during the April 24 hearing.
The motion noted that Moreno repeatedly interrupted Bernardo, remarking: "Nahuhulaan mo kung ano ang itatanong ko sa iyo? Kagaling mo naman" (Can you guess what I am going to ask you? How brilliant of you) and later telling him, "Gulo mo, brother" (You are a mess, brother).
When Bernardo attempted to explain the process of how the 2025 DPWH budget allocations were made, according to the Ombudsman, Moreno reportedly retorted, "Mahirap kausap ang patay, Brother" (It is hard to talk to the dead, Brother) after Bernardo cited information given to him by another official.
The Ombudsman argued that Moreno’s extensive questioning—which often sounded like a defense cross-examination—sought to prematurely conclude that Revilla had no hand in the facilitation of the P92.8 million flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan, shifting the entire blame onto Bernardo and Alcantara.
Excessive questioning, bias
The Ombudsman pointed out that Moreno’s active participation in the hearings far exceeded that of the defense counsels.
In Alcantara’s testimony, Moreno asked approximately 250 questions compared to the defense's 190.
For Bernardo, Moreno propounded around 290 questions, while the defense lawyers combined asked only 210.
The motion also cited similar harsh treatment of other state witnesses, including contractor Sally Santos, whom Moreno told: "Nag-i-insultuhan tayo dito eh, ha?" (Are we insulting each other here?) and DPWH Finance Section Head Genivieve Cuaresma.
"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," the Ombudsman’s motion read.
"To the mind of the prosecution, it appears that the questioning of the Honorable Justice is no longer motivated by the search for the truth but, rather, to confirm his own premature conclusion on the case,” it added.
While the Ombudsman clarified that the motion does not question Moreno's overall integrity or good faith, it emphasized that the "appearance of partiality" and the "sheer bias" exhibited in open court have severely eroded the state's confidence in obtaining a fair trial.
