Romualdez camp: Ombudsman trying to keep case alive with statements

MANILA, Philippines — It appears that the Office of the Ombudsman is merely trying to keep its case against Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez alive by issuing statements after witnesses recanted their testimonies, the lawmaker’s lawyer said on Tuesday.

In a statement, lawyer Ade Fajardo said that they disagree with Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano’s statements that the witnesses’ recantations can be considered additional evidence, as they can be put next to each other to determine which is true.

According to Fajardo, who also acts as Romualdez’s spokesperson, comparisons between initial statements and recantations, as well as additional testimonies, should cure issues and not be stacked on top of each other.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Well, we respectfully disagree po,” Fajardo said. “Mukhang nagsasabi lang ang tanggapan ng Ombudsman ng mga ganoong salita para sabihin na buhay pa ang kaso nito.”

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

(Well, we respectfully disagree. It seems the Office of the Ombudsman has been releasing these statements just to say that the case is still alive.)

“Sa aming estimation, sa aming appreciation ng mga recantation na ’yan, ang aming position ay talagang wala pong kaso na, sobrang hina na,” he added

(In our estimation, in our appreciation of these recantations, our position is that there is no case; it is really so weak.)

READ: Guteza recants: Marcoleta, Defensor tapped me to accuse Romualdez

Article continues after this advertisement

Romualdez, former House of Representatives Speaker during the 19th Congress and the first few months of the 20th Congress, is accused of facilitating budget insertions to implement anomalous infrastructure programs and receiving kickbacks from these projects.

However, Romualdez and his legal team have insisted that he is not involved in any wrongdoing, saying several times that as Speaker, he does not have control over every step of the budget-making process in Congress.

Article continues after this advertisement

Eventually, several witnesses like Orly Guteza and 18 other former security aides of ex-Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Elizaldy Co claimed that they were involved in a money-delivery scheme.

Romualdez was one of the lawmakers named as recipients of suitcases of cash from Co, former chairperson of the House committee on appropriations during the 19th Congress.

However, Guteza and some of the 18 bodyguards have recanted their statements about delivering money.

For Guteza, he claimed that it was the idea of Senator Rodante Marcoleta and former Anakalusugan party-list Rep. Mike Defensor to fabricate a story, saying in an affidavit dated August 13 that he he had no personal knowledge of the alleged delivery of “maleta” (suitcases) containing cash at Co’s Pasig residence, as well as the alleged delivery to Romualdez’s residence in Taguig.

Early this August, four of the 18 former Co bodyguards claimed in a report aired by GMA’s 24 Oras that they signed the joint affidavit because they had allegedly been promised financial assistance.

They were referring to the affidavit that they signed and presented during a February 24, 2026 press briefing along with Baligod, who was their lawyer. The 18 bodyguards made the same claims as Guteza — claiming that they were involved in the delivery of cash from Co to different lawmakers.

READ: More solons question timing of cash suitcases issue

Mastermind tag?

Romualdez used these recantations to bolster his claim that the charges against him should be dropped. Last August 20, Romualdez’s camp submitted a supplemental counter-affidavit to the Office of the Ombudsman, citing the recantations and the sworn statements of 25 of Co’s former drivers and security aides as reasons to junk the complaints against him.

READ: Romualdez: Baligod urged 25 Co aides to join ‘18 bodyguards’

Furthermore, the supplemental counter affidavit that Romualdez submitted stated that some of Co’s 25 former security aides were initially asked by lawyer Levito Baligod to join the cause of the ‘18 bodyguards’ in exchange for financial benefit.

But Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla downplayed the testimonies of the 25 individuals, saying that such a testimony does not affect their case.

READ: Ombudsman downplays Co’s 25 ‘bodyguards’ on Romualdez’ side

However, Fajardo questioned why the Office of the Ombudsman tagged Romualdez as a mastermind—and Remulla making statements that appear like conclusions already—while the preliminary investigation is still ongoing.

According to Fajardo, such a label could create the impression that a conclusion has been reached even before its evaluation of evidence is completed, and ahead of receiving Romualdez’s defense.

“Well, sa amin pong appreciation, at kami ay nangangamba na dahil sa maraming mga pampublikong posisyon ng kasalukuyang Ombudsman ay parang na-prejudge na, or parang meron nang konklusyon na nabuo, at hinahabol ang ebidensiya para lang masuportahan ‘yung…legal conclusion na sa amin namang palagay ay wala nga,” he said.

(Well, based on our appreciation, our worry is that because there has been a lot of public positions made by the current Ombudsman, there seems to be a prejudging or there is already a conclusion here, and that the evidence was just added to support the legal conclusion which to our belief is non-existent.)

“Ang naging problema namin diyan kasi nga at this stage po ng investigation, ang hinihiling po ng ating mga alituntunin at ng ating batas at mismong Saligang Batas ay fairness and impartiality,” he added.

(The problem with this is that, at this stage of the investigation, our request is for the observance of fairness and impartiality as shown in the rules, the laws, and the Constitution itself.)

Fajardo said that derogatory labels could shape public opinion even before conflicting statements can be resolved.

“Ang tawag namin po diyan ay prejudicial, at in effect parang ginagatungan ’yung anumang kaisipan,” he noted.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

(That is what you call prejudicial, and in effect you seem to be stoking such a mindset.) /cb