The Office of the Ombudsman and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) have no problem checking claims made by the 18 former bodyguards of ex-Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Elizaldy Co, but both agencies stressed the need for individual affidavits, as not every action was taken collectively.
At the consultative meeting of the Senate blue ribbon committee on Monday regarding the flood control scandal investigations, Sen. Bam Aquino asked Ombudsman Central Records Division officer-in-charge Karen Batu if the claims from the 18 so-called Marines were being investigated by the office.
Batu said she was not at liberty to say that, but she knows that lawyer-evaluators from the Office of the Ombudsman required the 18 bodyguards’ legal counsel, lawyer Levito Baligod, to submit individual affidavits stating their personal knowledge of the alleged incidents.
‘Personal knowledge’ required
‘When it was evaluated by our lawyer-evaluators and reviewed and approved by our officials, we sent a notice to Attorney Baligod saying that what the office requires is an individual affidavit for the Marines to declare or to state their personal knowledge of their statements,’ Batu said.
‘Because they made a collective, single joint affidavit for all of them. So when it was evaluated, our lawyer-evaluator said – and then it was reviewed and approved by our officials – that they cannot have everyone say the same thing because when they mentioned bringing suitcases, only some were present; others were not involved,’ she added in Filipino.
Aquino then asked Batu if the camp of the 18 bodyguards had already submitted individual affidavits. In response, Batu said that as far as she knows, the 18 bodyguards’ camp has not yet sent these documents.
NBI Director Melvin Matibag said that, while they were able to interview the 18 bodyguards, only five signed the testimony, as Baligod stopped the 13, because he wanted to review the documents.
Matibag said that Baligod later on wanted to rip the documents.
Problem with collective affidavit
Sen. Francis ‘Kiko’ Pangilinan also asked Prosecutor-General Richard Anthony Fadullon if there would be a problem with a group submitting a collective affidavit.
Fadullon said it would not be a problem if the entire group had personal knowledge of everything that was alleged in the document, or if there were clarifications that, for a certain portion, only select individuals knew what transpired.
‘If a joint affidavit is submitted to the Department of Justice and this is signed by let’s say 10 or 18 people for that matter, when there is no qualification in the affidavit, in the statement, that this was taken, was participated in by this particular individual, it would appear, as far as the reader is concerned, that all of the signatories have personal knowledge about what was stated,’ Fadullon said.
‘That’s why we always tell them that if they craft a joint affidavit, they should ensure that everyone identified has personal knowledge of the issues. If not, they can place qualifications on the joint affidavit itself, to state that, on this occasion, only these individuals have been part of or were involved,’ he added.
Coached or rehearsed testimony?
Fadullon said that the route taken by the NBI and the Ombudsman – requiring individual affidavits – was the best way to move forward since it has been a Supreme Court doctrine that affidavits that are perfectly aligned with each other reek of a coached or rehearsed testimony.
‘If there is no such qualification, then I would have to concede to the strategy being undertaken by the NBI as well as the Ombudsman, that it’s better to really have individual affidavits, because it’s also a way of trying to compare and test the credibility of these witnesses,’ he said.
‘Again, what I said earlier, the Supreme Court has already decided in a host of cases that when affidavits perfectly, or the allegations or statements perfectly dovetail, this means there is a pattern, and such raises doubts. It would be better if there is a bit of inconsistency because it gives badges of truth to it rather than if it perfectly dovetails,’ he added.
Repeated allegations
Discussions about the claims of the 18 ex-bodyguards surfaced again as the group led by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano pushed through with the blue ribbon committee hearing last Thursday, despite all Senate positions having been declared vacant and new officials having been elected a day before.
During the discussions, the 18 former bodyguards testified and reiterated several of their allegations, which were contained in an affidavit released on Feb. 25, 2026.
The former officers claimed that they used to work for Co, who used to head the House of Representatives’ committee on appropriations. According to the 18 individuals, they were tasked by Co with delivering suitcases allegedly filled with cash to various recipients, including several House members.
However, observers were quick to point out alleged inconsistencies and changes from the 18 individuals’ testimony last Thursday and their original affidavit last February. Manila Rep. Joel Chua said that the venue where the 18 bodyguards supposedly handed the money to him changed.
Lawmakers deny allegations
Meanwhile, Palawan Rep. Jose Alvarez questioned his sudden inclusion in the list of those who received suitcases.
Alvarez rushed to the Senate on Thursday to confront the 18 individuals, saying that he did not receive any suitcase with cash. When asked why he was suddenly included on the list, Alvarez said it might be because he refused to endorse an impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
According to the lawmaker, a certain Margarette, who claimed to represent former Rep. Mike Defensor – a supporter of the 18 Marines – texted him and sent a copy of the complaint against Marcos.
When asked if he would endorse the complaint, Alvarez said he flatly denied the request.
Other lawmakers have also denied the allegations. According to Deputy Speaker Janette Garin, some sectors have been using the Senate as a political theater weeks before the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Garin disputed the allegations that she and other lawmakers received any suitcase from Co, asking the public to be ‘vigilant and discerning’ as the current political climate has led to the proliferation of ‘gross propaganda and public deception.’
Aside from Garin, Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V also noted that the blue ribbon committee hearing was merely staged to discredit the House before Duterte’s impeachment trial even starts.