The Market Monitor Minding the Nation's Business
The complaint against former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez is based largely on conflicting witness accounts and lacks forensic or documentary evidence directly linking him to alleged cash deliveries, his lawyer and spokesperson Ade Fajardo said Thursday.
Fajardo said the Ombudsman investigation, which has been ongoing for months, has yet to produce evidence that directly connects Romualdez to the alleged transactions.
“Lumalabas, wala man lang (It appears, there’s no) forensic evidence or object or documentary evidence linking the former Speaker,” Fajardo said at a press conference.
He said the defense could not predict whether more witnesses would withdraw their allegations or reaffirm their statements.
“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),” he said.
Fajardo criticized what he described as the reliance on oral accounts that have changed over time, saying such testimony must be carefully examined and corroborated by other evidence.
Four of the original 18 “Maleta Boys” have earlier recanted their accounts. Retired Marine T/Sgt. Orly Guteza, who testified before the Senate in September 2025 that he delivered suitcases containing cash to Romualdez, also reportedly withdrew his allegation in a new affidavit dated Aug. 19.
Other witnesses, however, have maintained their allegations. One witness claimed that millions of pesos were offered to induce recantations, while lawyer Levito Baligod submitted a flash drive that he said was relevant to the witnesses’ reversals. Romualdez’s camp has denied influencing or paying witnesses.
Fajardo described the complaint as a “non-case,” arguing that the allegations now largely rest on inconsistent narratives.
“It’s a non-case,” he 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 also cited cyberlibel and perjury complaints filed against Baligod and members of the witness group, while stressing that these cases do not replace the Ombudsman’s responsibility to independently evaluate the alleged cash-delivery scheme.
Fajardo also called for an impartial resolution of the Ombudsman investigation, saying its outcome should not be treated as predetermined.
The Ombudsman ordered Romualdez and his co-respondents in July to submit counter-affidavits addressing 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 said.
The order to submit counter-affidavits forms part of a preliminary investigation and does not mean that 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 submit a supplemental counter-affidavit Thursday, including 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 submitted, he said.
The Ombudsman has said that after all required submissions are completed, the case will be submitted for resolution. Investigators are expected to assess the complaint, counter-affidavits, recantations and other corroborating or contradictory evidence.
Fajardo maintained that the allegations do not establish a direct transaction between Romualdez and the alleged cash-delivery scheme.
“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 does not by itself establish participation in an unlawful transaction.