If proven that the dismissal order against then congressman and now Senator Joel Villanueva was reversed, it would be concerning, Malacañang said.

"Kung ito po ay mapapatunayang totoo, ito po ay nakakabahala dahil hindi dapat nagkakaroon ng pagdududa ang taumbayan sa ating justice system considering na ito po ang isa sa pinakamahalagang ahensya upang maiwasan at matugunan ang issue about sa korapsyon sa bansa (If this is proven to be true, it is alarming because the public should not have doubts about our justice system, considering that it is one of the most important institutions tasked to prevent and address issues of corruption in the country)," Palace Press Officer and Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro said in a Palace briefing on Friday, Oct. 24.

In what Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla called as a "surprise, secret decision,” the dismissal order against Villanueva issued in 2016 was allegedly reversed by former Ombudsman Samuel Martires in 2019.

The dismissal order was issued after Villanueva was found administratively guilty of Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in 2016 due to the misuse of his P10 million Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) when he was still a Party-List member of the House of Representatives.

Castro believes that the matter should be thoroughly investigated, stressing that they continue to have faith and confidence in the capability of Remulla.

"At kahit sila ay independent body, dapat din nating sabihin sa kanila/sa atin, sa pamamagitan natin na dapat ito talagang maimbestigahan nang malaliman upang kung anuman ang may pagkakamali, kung anuman ang nalabag na batas kung mayroon man ay dapat itong masolusyunan at maitama ng Office of the Ombudsman (And although the Office of the Ombudsman is an independent body, it must also be said—through us—that this matter should be thoroughly investigated. If there were any mistakes or violations of the law, they must be addressed and corrected by the Office of the Ombudsman)," Castro said.

The Palace official further said that it is difficult to speculate at this point if the dismissal remains valid once it is proven that the there was indeed a "secret decision."

"Depende po sa sitwasyon, mahirap po kasing mag-speculate ngayon. Pero kung may nalabag po ito at halimbawa po ay hindi po nabigyan ng kopya ang mga parties, iyon pong time para mag-file ng anumang aksyon – let’s say motion for reconsideration regarding the said decision ay hindi naman po umaandar (It depends on the situation—it’s difficult to speculate at this point. But if any rules were violated, such as the failure to provide copies of the decision to the concerned parties, then the period for filing any action—let’s say, a motion for reconsideration regarding the said decision—would not have commenced)," she said.

Castro stressed that "it really depends on the circumstances," explaining that there is a provision in the Office of the Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure which allows for the filing of a motion for reconsideration.

However, if the case is criminal in nature, the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stop the filing of the criminal case before the Sandiganbayan or any other proper court, she added.

Castro pointed out that if a motion for reconsideration was filed in 2016, it should not have taken until 2019 for the motion to be resolved.

"So, lumalabas po kung nagkaroon ng motion for reconsideration in 2016, hindi na dapat agad umabot ng 2019 or two years para madesisyunan iyong motion for reconsideration (Therefore, if a motion for reconsideration was filed in 2016, it should not have taken until 2019, or two years later, for the motion to be resolved)," Castro said.

"Dapat naisampa na ito sa Sandiganbayan kung iyon po ang magiging… one of the facts or data na masasabing or makikita ng Office of the Ombudsman (The case should have already been filed with the Sandiganbayan, if that was indeed one of the facts or data observed by the Office of the Ombudsman)," she added.