By Zaldy De Layola
MANILA – The complaint against former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez rests largely on conflicting witness accounts and contains no forensic or documentary evidence directly linking him to alleged cash deliveries, his counsel and spokesperson lawyer Ade Fajardo said Thursday.
Fajardo made the assertion when asked whether the defense expected more witnesses to recant and how the conflicting statements could affect the Office of the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation.
“Hindi namin ma-predict, hindi namin mahulaan kung sino pa ang babaliktad o sino pa ang magsasabi ng katotohanan (We cannot predict, we cannot guess who else would retract or who else would say the truth),” Fajardo said at a press conference.
He noted that the investigation had been underway for months and that the Ombudsman has broad authority to summon witnesses and obtain records.
“Ang kapansin-pansin lang dito (What is noticeable here) is this investigation has been going on for several months,” he said. “Lumalabas, wala man lang (It appears, there’s no) forensic evidence or object or documentary evidence linking the former Speaker.”
Fajardo criticized what he described as the defense’s reliance on oral accounts that had changed over time. He said oral evidence is inherently unreliable, adding that “we have laws on perjury, libel and many others, because these things are easily manufactured.”
Four of the original 18 “Maleta Boys” have earlier recanted their accounts. Retired Marine T/Sgt. Orly Guteza, who separately testified before the Senate in September 2025 that he delivered suitcases containing cash to Romualdez, also withdrew his allegation in a new affidavit reported on Aug. 19.
Other witnesses, however, have maintained their earlier statements. One witness alleged that millions of pesos had been offered to induce recantations, while lawyer Levito Baligod submitted a flash drive that he said was relevant to the reversals. Romualdez’s camp has denied influencing or paying any witness.
“It’s a non-case,” Fajardo said. “It should be dismissed kasi wala nang ebidensya maliban sa kuwento, at ang kuwento ay iba-iba; ang kuwento ay nababaliktad (no evidence aside from narratives, and the narratives varied; the stories are being reversed).”
He said some individuals had been included or removed from the accounts as the political climate changed.
Fajardo also cited cyberlibel and perjury cases filed against Baligod and members of the witness group, noting that government agencies, including the National Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, had pursued such cases.
The perjury complaints concern allegedly false statements made by witnesses in separate proceedings. They do not replace the Ombudsman’s obligation to assess the alleged cash-delivery scheme based on its own evidence, just as the recantations do not automatically invalidate earlier accounts.
Fajardo said Romualdez had responded to the allegations and would submit the latest affidavits for consideration.
Ombudsman resolution must not be pre-ordained
Fajardo also said any resolution of the Ombudsman investigation involving Romualdez should be based on a full and impartial evaluation of the evidence and should not be treated as predetermined.
He was responding to questions about reports that the Ombudsman was nearing a decision after receiving the parties’ submissions.
He said the anti-graft office ordered Romualdez and his co-respondents in July to submit counter-affidavits responding to complaints involving alleged plunder, graft, bribery and money laundering.
“Dapat hindi ganoon ang pagkakasabi. Dapat hindi pre-ordained ang resulta (It shouldn’t be said that way. The result should not be pre-ordained). We can only hope for fairness),” Fajardo told reporters.
The Ombudsman’s order to file counter-affidavits is part of a preliminary investigation and does not mean criminal charges have been filed in court or that any respondent has been found guilty.
Romualdez filed his initial counter-affidavit on Aug. 7. Fajardo said the defense would file a supplemental counter-affidavit Thursday after requesting additional time, attaching statements from 25 former security, administrative and close-in aides associated with former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Zaldy Co.
Guteza’s reported recantation would also be included, he said.
The Ombudsman earlier said that once the required submissions were complete, the matter would be submitted for resolution. Investigators would then weigh the complaint, counter-affidavits, recantations and other corroborating or contradictory evidence.
Fajardo said the defense had already answered the allegations identified by the Ombudsman’s special panel.
“Actually, all the allegations have officially been made already kasi iyong Ombudsman ay may tinatawag na (because the Ombudsman has what is known as) special panel of investigators,” he said.
Fajardo maintained that no transaction or flood-control project directly tied Romualdez to the alleged delivery scheme. He said the allegations appeared to rely heavily on the positions Romualdez and Co held in the House of Representatives.
“Ang parang umiikot lang ang kuwento sa the fact na (it’s like the story revolves around the fact that) he was Speaker of the House when Zaldy Co was appropriations chair,” he said.
Fajardo argued that congressional budgeting is a collective process involving the House, Senate and executive branch, and that holding the speakership alone does not establish participation in an unlawful transaction. (PNA)
