MANILA, Philippines — Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson is pushing for tougher punishment not only for people who lie under oath, but also for those who allegedly pressure, pay or persuade witnesses to give false testimony—a move triggered by the increasingly tangled battle over witnesses in the country’s controversial flood-control investigation.
Lacson said he intends to propose heavier penalties for what is commonly called subornation of perjury, or inducing another person to commit perjury, following the recantation of retired Marine Technical Sergeant Orly Guteza and earlier reversals by several members of the so-called “Maleta Boys.”
The senator warned that repeated cycles of explosive testimony followed by sudden recantations could turn sworn statements into what he described as a potentially “lucrative business,” particularly when politically sensitive cases are involved.
Guteza’s stunning reversal puts witness credibility back in spotlight
Guteza had previously claimed that he helped deliver suitcases allegedly containing cash to former House Speaker Martin Romualdez in connection with alleged kickbacks from government flood-control projects.
But in a new affidavit dated August 13, 2026, Guteza withdrew those accusations and said he had no personal knowledge of the alleged cash deliveries. He instead accused Senator Rodante Marcoleta and former congressman Mike Defensor of influencing or pressuring him into making allegations against Romualdez.
Those accusations remain allegations and would have to be independently established by investigators.
Guteza’s reversal followed earlier recantations by four members of the group popularly called the “Maleta Boys,” former aides linked to ex-Ako Bicol representative Zaldy Co who had earlier given statements concerning alleged suitcase deliveries.
Their changing stories have created an extraordinary credibility battle: investigators must now determine not simply which version of events is accurate, but whether anyone deliberately manufactured testimony—or pressured witnesses to withdraw truthful accounts.
Lacson: Existing law may not be enough
Lacson noted that Congress already strengthened the country’s perjury law through Republic Act No. 11594, signed in 2021.
The law amended Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code and raised the punishment for ordinary perjury to prision mayor in its minimum period, equivalent to six years and one day to eight years.
It also allows a fine of up to P1 million, while public officials or employees convicted under the provision face additional consequences, including perpetual absolute disqualification from holding government office.
But Lacson wants lawmakers to go further when another person is responsible for inducing the lie.
Under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, a person who directly forces or induces another to commit a crime may be treated as a principal by inducement. Philippine Supreme Court rulings have also made clear that inducement must be sufficiently powerful or influential to become a determining cause of the crime—it cannot simply be casual advice or an ambiguous suggestion.
Lacson’s planned legislation would seek stronger penalties and fines specifically aimed at people proven to have manipulated witnesses into committing perjury.
The senator has pushed tougher perjury laws before
The proposal is not entirely new territory for Lacson.
Senate records show that he filed measures in both the 17th and 18th Congresses seeking amendments to provisions of the Revised Penal Code covering false testimony and perjury.
Just last month, during proceedings connected with Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, Lacson also clarified that he had previously recommended changes to the law after former police officer Arturo Lascañas reversed testimony given during earlier Senate investigations.
Lacson stressed at the time that he had recommended strengthening the law rather than personally filing a perjury case against Lascañas.
That history makes his latest proposal part of a broader position: witnesses who knowingly lie under oath—and people who deliberately manufacture those lies—should face consequences strong enough to discourage politically motivated testimony.
Ombudsman says recantations do not automatically kill the case
The controversy is bigger than Guteza.
Four “Maleta Boys” had already withdrawn earlier allegations involving Romualdez, prompting questions over how heavily investigators could rely on witness testimony.
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, however, has maintained that the investigation does not stand or fall on the recanting witnesses alone.
Earlier this month, Remulla said the four witnesses who withdrew their accounts could themselves face consequences depending on the findings of investigators.
Separate reporting on Guteza’s recantation said the Ombudsman maintained that its investigation had additional witnesses and evidence and would not automatically collapse because one witness reversed his story.
Romualdez’s lawyers, meanwhile, have argued that the recantations reinforce their position that the allegations against the former Speaker are unreliable and unsupported by sufficient hard evidence. They have asked the Ombudsman to dismiss the plunder complaint against him.
Romualdez has denied wrongdoing.
The bigger question: Who is telling the truth—and who may be influencing them?
That is now the dilemma facing investigators.
If Guteza’s original testimony was deliberately fabricated, authorities must determine who created the false story and whether anyone induced him to deliver it under oath.
But if a truthful witness was later pressured, threatened or rewarded to retract testimony, that would raise an entirely different—and equally serious—problem.
A recantation by itself does not establish either scenario.
That is why Lacson’s proposal reaches beyond the personalities currently dominating the headlines.
Witness testimony can help build major corruption cases, but when sworn statements become vulnerable to political pressure, money or intimidation, the justice system faces a deeper problem: the government may no longer be investigating only the alleged crime—it may also have to investigate the machinery influencing the witnesses themselves.
And with multiple witnesses now telling sharply different versions of the same scandal, the next phase of the flood-control investigation may depend less on who speaks the loudest—and more on what independent documentary, financial and forensic evidence investigators can prove.
Leave a Reply