THE Office of the Ombudsman on Saturday said the revelations of resigned Ako Bicol Rep. Zaldy Co in his series of video statements ‘cannot stand alone in court law’ unless he returns and goes through proper legal procedures.
The Ombudsman issued the statement after Co posted the second part of his ‘tell-all’ video on his official Facebook page, where he also challenged Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla to investigate President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr. and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, whom he claimed benefited from the alleged P100 billion insertion in the 2025 budget.
Co also confirmed the statement made by his ex-aide, former Marine officer Orly Guteza, before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee about delivering cash in kickbacks to Malacañang and the residence of Romualdez in Forbes Park.
The former solon, who left for the United States last July, also claimed that Marcos received P25 billion, representing 25 percent in ‘SOP’ kickbacks from the P100 billion in insertions.
He said it was the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) that told him that, based on standard operating procedure (SOP), a 25 percent commission is being given to the President.
In the said video, Co showed photos of several luggage items purportedly containing cash intended for Marcos and Romualdez.
Co also challenged Remulla to investigate Romualdez, but at the same time expressed doubts that the former would do so.
He noted that the two officials are friends and fraternity brothers at the University of the Philippines Upsilon Sigma Phi.
Co then called on the Senate to conduct its own probe in order to ferret out the truth about the 2025 budget insertions, which have been tagged as the ‘most corrupt’ budget enacted in Philippine history.
‘Pero magaling ang Senado sa imbestigasyon. At ako ay naniniwala na dahil sa kanila, lalabas ang katotohanan (But, the Senate is good at investigation. I believe that they can bring out the truth),’ Co said.
The Ombudsman, in a statement, urged Co to return to the country instead of releasing information through social media, which may ‘carry weight’ but not sufficient to initiate court proceedings.
‘Mr. Co, we respectfully urge you: submit your statements under oath, through the proper process, so they may be examined with the seriousness they deserve. If the intention is to help uncover the truth, then let us pursue it in the manner that leads to real and enforceable accountability – not through spectacle, but through the rules that govern us all,’ the Ombudsman said.
The Ombudsman said Co should give the Ombudsman the opportunity to cross-examine him and evaluate his evidence.
‘That is how we protect the public from falsehoods and the innocent from injustice. The question, then, is simple: why does Mr. Co expect his statements to be taken at face value when every other witness is – as they must be – subjected to scrutiny?’ it added.
The Ombudsman also offered to secure Co in case he finally decides to return to the country.
‘If the reason for hiding is fear, we are stating clearly: We are ready to provide protection. A witness’s safety is important in the truth we are seeking,’ the Ombudsman said.
SC DESIGNATES RTCs AS ANTI-GRAFT COURTS
This developed as Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo ordered the designation of several regional trial courts as special courts to handle corruption-related cases in relation to the ongoing investigation into the multi-billion anomalous flood control and infrastructure projects of the government.
Gesmundo’s order stemmed from the recommendation of Court Administrator Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta to designate specific RTC judges pursuant to the Court en banc resolution directing the Office of the Court Administrator to monitor the filing of cases involving corruption in infrastructure projects before the lower courts.
‘These special courts will exclusively hear and decide corruption-related cases arising from infrastructure projects. In areas with no designated RTCs, the case shall be referred to the nearest judicial region with designated special courts,’ the SC said.
The SC said the designated judges will undergo training from the Philippine Judicial Academy, with lectures led by Sandiganbayan associate justices.
The training will cover substantive and procedural laws such as Republic Act 7080 or the Law on Plunder, RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, rules on bail in plunder cases, evidentiary rules in anti-graft cases, the rule on cyber warrants, and rules on forensic evidence, among others.
The SC noted that under RA 106660, an act strengthening the functional and structural organization of the Sandiganbayan, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction when the graft case does not involve damage to the government or any bribery; or when it involves damage to the government or bribery arising from transactions not exceeding P1 million.
On the other hand, jurisdiction over graft cases involving public officers occupying positions lower than Salary Grade 27 belongs to the RTC, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act. Likewise, the SC said appeals from the decisions of the designated RTCs shall be heard by the Sandiganbayan.