MANILA, Philippines — The high-stakes investigation into alleged irregularities involving multibillion-peso flood control projects has taken another dramatic turn, with the Office of the Ombudsman saying it now has 42 witnesses connected to its complaints against Leyte Rep. and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
But as the number of witnesses cited by investigators grows, so does the fierce dispute over who is telling the truth—and whether the recantations that have rocked the case should change its direction.
Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano said Friday that the anti-graft agency’s witness pool includes 28 new witnesses, in addition to 14 of the original 18 individuals known in media reports as the “maleta boys” who have not recanted their earlier accounts.
The Ombudsman is investigating complaints involving allegations of plunder, graft, bribery and money laundering linked to the controversial flood control projects. Investigators have alleged that Romualdez and former Ako Bicol party-list representative Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co were involved in coordinated acts that resulted in the alleged accumulation of approximately P56 billion in ill-gotten wealth from 2022 to 2025. Some of the allegations involve claims that money was transported in suitcases.
Romualdez has repeatedly denied the accusations.
From 28 to 42: Why the Ombudsman Expanded Its Witness Pool
Just days ago, the Ombudsman said it had 28 witnesses ready to provide what it described as direct and material information related to the transactions under investigation, despite a series of witness recantations.
The latest announcement clarifies that the 28 are additional witnesses, bringing the total cited by the Ombudsman to 42 when combined with the 14 remaining members of the original 18-person witness group.
However, Clavano stressed that the investigation should not be reduced to a simple contest of numbers.
The central issue, he said, is the quality and credibility of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the conflicting affidavits. The Ombudsman is also examining information suggesting that some witnesses may have been paid or otherwise influenced to withdraw their earlier statements, although officials have not publicly identified who may be responsible.
Recantations Have Put the Case Under Intense Scrutiny
The investigation has faced mounting complications after several witnesses withdrew or disputed earlier allegations.
Among the most significant developments was the recantation of former Marine Orly Guteza, who had previously been linked to allegations involving the delivery of suitcases containing cash. The Ombudsman earlier insisted that a recantation does not automatically erase earlier testimony and said its case does not depend on any single witness.
Other members of the original group of alleged former security personnel have also changed their accounts. Earlier reports said at least four of the 18 “maleta boys” had recanted, prompting the Ombudsman to seek additional testimony and evidence to assess the conflicting claims.
Romualdez Camp Pushes Back
Romualdez’s legal team, meanwhile, has strongly challenged the case and called for the complaints to be dismissed.
His lawyer and spokesperson, Ade Fajardo, has argued that numerous former personnel associated with Zaldy Co have either withdrawn allegations or submitted statements contradicting the claims of those who accused Romualdez of receiving money.
The defense has also questioned whether there is sufficient documentary or forensic evidence directly linking the former House speaker to the alleged cash deliveries. Romualdez’s camp maintains that conflicting witness statements should be carefully scrutinized and that the Ombudsman must independently determine which accounts, if any, are credible.
The Ombudsman, however, has maintained that recantations are not unusual in high-profile investigations and that investigators must examine both the original statements and the reasons witnesses later changed their accounts.
What Happens Next?
The case remains at the preliminary investigation stage, meaning the Ombudsman has yet to make a final determination on whether sufficient grounds exist to file criminal charges in court.
That distinction is critical: the complaints and allegations do not amount to a conviction, and Romualdez has not been found guilty of any crime in connection with the case.
Investigators will now have to weigh a complex and increasingly contested body of evidence—including original affidavits, recantations, counter-affidavits and testimony from newly identified witnesses.
And with the Ombudsman now saying it has 42 witnesses, the next phase may no longer be about how many people are speaking—but about whose testimony can withstand the toughest scrutiny.
As the witness battle intensifies, one question now hangs over one of the country’s biggest corruption investigations:
Will the Ombudsman’s expanding witness list strengthen the case—or will the wave of recantations ultimately reshape it?
Leave a Reply