MANILA, Philippines — A political controversy surrounding the Senate’s flood-control investigation has taken a dramatic turn after retired Marine Orly Guteza withdrew his earlier testimony and accused Sen. Rodante Marcoleta and former lawmaker Mike Defensor of pressuring and allegedly coaching him to make claims against former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The development prompted Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson to push for tougher penalties against people who induce or force witnesses to commit perjury—raising the possibility that those who are proven to have orchestrated false testimony could face legal consequences.
But there is an important distinction: Lacson has proposed tougher legislation on subornation of perjury; this does not mean Marcoleta or Defensor have already been charged or found liable for the offense. Any criminal liability would require an investigation and sufficient evidence.
Guteza’s explosive reversal
Guteza, a former Marine who previously worked as a security aide associated with former lawmaker Zaldy Co, became a surprise witness during a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing in September 2025.
At the time, he claimed he had personally participated in alleged cash deliveries linked to the flood-control controversy, including alleged deliveries involving Romualdez.
But in an affidavit dated Aug. 13, 2026, Guteza recanted those allegations. He said he did not have personal knowledge of the alleged cash deliveries and accused Marcoleta and Defensor of inducing him to fabricate portions of his testimony.
According to Philstar’s account of the affidavit, Guteza alleged that he met Defensor and Marcoleta shortly before his Senate appearance and claimed he was offered financial and educational assistance for his family. He further alleged that Marcoleta edited portions of his draft affidavit and later reprimanded him during the hearing for deviating from the prepared narrative. These are allegations contained in Guteza’s recantation and have not been independently established as facts.
Lacson: The alleged “coaching” was already on record
Lacson said Guteza’s recantation did not come as a surprise because he had previously raised concerns about the witness appearing to be coached during the Senate hearing.
The senator pointed to the hearing record and Senate CCTV footage, saying Guteza had been seen entering Marcoleta’s office for roughly half an hour before appearing before the Blue Ribbon Committee. Lacson argued that the circumstances warranted scrutiny.
That claim, however, should not automatically be interpreted as proof of criminal conduct. A meeting between a senator and a witness, or prompting a witness during testimony, by itself does not establish subornation of perjury. The legal question would be whether someone knowingly induced another person to make a materially false statement under oath.
Why “subornation of perjury” is now in the spotlight
Lacson said the Guteza controversy should not simply end with the witness’s recantation.
He cited Republic Act No. 11594, which increased penalties for perjury, and said a person who induces another to commit perjury may already be liable as a principal by inducement under existing law. Lacson said he intends to introduce legislation imposing heavier penalties and fines specifically for what he described as “subornation of perjury.”
The senator’s proposal comes amid several recent witness reversals in the broader flood-control controversy, including recantations by Guteza and other individuals previously described as “maleta boys.”
Lacson has characterized the repeated recantations as evidence of a potentially lucrative cycle involving fabricated testimony and subsequent withdrawals.
Ombudsman says Guteza’s recantation does not end the Romualdez probe
Despite the political shockwaves caused by Guteza’s reversal, the Office of the Ombudsman has stressed that its investigation into allegations involving Romualdez does not depend on a single witness.
The anti-graft body said it has 28 witnesses with direct and material information concerning the transactions under investigation. It described witness recantations in high-profile cases as a possible “classic pressure tactic” and said the investigation would continue.
That means Guteza’s recantation could significantly affect the evidentiary picture surrounding his own allegations, but it does not automatically erase the broader investigation.
Romualdez, meanwhile, has used Guteza’s reversal to renew his call for the dismissal of complaints against him, while maintaining his denial of the accusations surrounding the flood-control controversy.
Palace calls for investigation into alleged witness manipulation
Malacañang has also called the circumstances surrounding Guteza’s recantation concerning.
Palace press officer Claire Castro said the allegations should be investigated to determine whether false stories or witnesses were deliberately manufactured and who, if anyone, was behind such efforts. She emphasized that the matter should be left to the Ombudsman, Department of Justice and other competent investigating authorities.
The controversy therefore extends beyond the political dispute between Lacson and Marcoleta. At its center is a broader question over the reliability of testimony being used in one of the country’s most politically sensitive corruption investigations.
Marcoleta and Defensor remain at the center of the dispute
Guteza’s allegations have placed Marcoleta and Defensor under renewed scrutiny, particularly because of the alleged meetings and interactions preceding his original Senate testimony.
However, the accusations remain allegations. Reporting on the matter should distinguish between what Guteza says happened, what Lacson says he observed, and what investigators may ultimately establish through documents, recordings, CCTV footage, testimony and other evidence.
The Senate, for its part, has indicated that the issue of possible perjury will ultimately be handled through the proper investigative and legal processes. Erwin Tulfo said the Blue Ribbon Committee would leave any decision regarding possible perjury proceedings involving Guteza to the Ombudsman.
What happens next?
The biggest question now is whether Guteza’s recantation will trigger a deeper investigation into how his original testimony was obtained—and whether evidence exists to substantiate his claims that he was pressured or coached.
For Lacson, the issue is bigger than one witness.
He is seeking stronger penalties for anyone who deliberately manufactures sworn testimony, arguing that the legal system must discourage the use of witnesses as political weapons.
For Marcoleta and Defensor, meanwhile, the crucial issue is whether Guteza’s allegations can be independently corroborated.
Until that happens, the allegations should not be treated as established criminal wrongdoing.
But with the Ombudsman continuing its flood-control investigation, 28 other witnesses reportedly still in the picture, and Lacson preparing a legislative response to alleged witness manipulation, the Guteza controversy is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
Leave a Reply