MANILA, Philippines — Former House Speaker and Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez remains under scrutiny in the massive flood control controversy despite the withdrawal of testimony by a key witness, with the Office of the Ombudsman insisting that its investigation is far from dependent on a single account.
The latest twist came after retired Marine Orly Guteza, who had previously linked Romualdez to alleged deliveries of cash connected to questionable flood control projects, recanted his earlier claims. But instead of derailing the investigation, the Ombudsman said it still has 28 other witnesses who are prepared to provide what it described as direct and material information about the transactions under investigation.
That disclosure significantly raises the stakes for Romualdez, whose legal team is pushing for the dismissal of the plunder complaint and arguing that witness reversals have exposed major weaknesses in the allegations against him.
Ombudsman: Probe Does Not Rise or Fall on One Witness
In a statement on August 20, the Ombudsman dismissed the idea that Guteza’s recantation automatically weakens the entire case.
The anti-graft agency described recantations in high-profile investigations as nothing unusual and characterized the development as a possible pressure tactic. More importantly, it stressed that the case does not revolve around only one — or even a handful — of witnesses.
Reports from several news organizations said the Ombudsman has identified 28 witnesses with material knowledge related to transactions being examined in connection with Romualdez. Some reports described them as active uniformed personnel.
The Ombudsman’s position means Guteza’s reversal is only one element in a much larger evidentiary fight.
Romualdez Camp Uses Recantation to Bolster Defense
Romualdez’s lawyers, meanwhile, have moved aggressively to use the changing witness accounts in his favor.
His camp filed a supplemental counter-affidavit before the Ombudsman on August 20 and included Guteza’s recantation among the materials supporting the former Speaker’s defense.
Lawyer Ade Fajardo has argued that the allegations should be dismissed because of what the defense considers inconsistent witness statements and an absence of documentary or forensic evidence directly proving that Romualdez received the alleged cash deliveries.
Reports also said Romualdez’s supplemental filing referenced sworn statements from 25 former drivers, security personnel and close-in aides associated with former Ako Bicol Rep. Zaldy Co, whose accounts are being cited by the defense.
The competing witness numbers — 28 cited by investigators and 25 invoked by the defense — now illustrate how heavily the next phase of the case may depend on credibility, corroboration and independent evidence.
What Guteza Originally Alleged — and Why His Recantation Matters
Guteza had earlier claimed that he participated in delivering suitcases containing cash allegedly connected to kickbacks from government flood control projects.
He later withdrew those allegations and claimed he had been used to implicate Romualdez. Reports on his recantation said Guteza accused Sen. Rodante Marcoleta and former congressman Mike Defensor of instructing him to make the earlier accusations. Those claims remain allegations and would themselves require investigation and proof.
The Palace has since called for an investigation into anyone who may have masterminded fabricated testimony, saying charges should be pursued if evidence establishes that witnesses were deliberately made to provide false statements.
Romualdez’s camp has also denied any role in convincing former witnesses to reverse their testimony.
Case Goes Beyond Guteza
The broader Ombudsman investigation predates the latest witness controversy.
In July, the anti-graft body confirmed that Romualdez was facing preliminary investigation over complaints involving alleged plunder and money laundering linked to questionable flood control spending. Officials had described him as a central figure in the alleged scheme, while emphasizing that the investigation had not yet resulted in a criminal conviction and that the presumption of innocence remained intact.
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said in July that investigators were already close to pursuing plunder charges but still needed to complete the necessary legal and evidentiary work.
The flood control controversy itself is much wider than Romualdez. In June, Remulla said his office was examining more than 200 investigations involving allegedly anomalous flood control projects, with several cases already reaching the courts.
Allegations surrounding the projects have included ghost infrastructure, substandard construction and misuse of public money — issues that intensified after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. ordered closer scrutiny of flood control spending.
Marcos Says Ombudsman Must Handle the Case Independently
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who is Romualdez’s cousin, has publicly said he would leave the timing and handling of possible charges to the Ombudsman.
During his July 27 State of the Nation Address, Marcos said accountability must apply even when investigations involve people close to him, while later telling reporters that he was not privy to the Ombudsman’s timetable.
That separation will be closely watched because the case involves one of the country’s most powerful political figures and allegations tied to billions of pesos in public infrastructure spending.
What Happens Next?
Romualdez has not been found guilty of plunder or any other offense arising from the current preliminary investigation. His lawyers continue to challenge both the reliability of the witnesses and the strength of the evidence.
The Ombudsman must now weigh the original sworn statements, the subsequent recantations, the defense affidavits and any financial, documentary or testimonial evidence investigators may have independently gathered.
A preliminary investigation is designed to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to bring a criminal case to court. It is not itself a finding of guilt.
But the latest development makes one thing increasingly clear: Guteza’s recantation did not end the Romualdez investigation. It opened a new battle over which witnesses are telling the truth — and whether the Ombudsman’s remaining evidence can stand even without those who have changed their stories.
With investigators publicly pointing to 28 additional witnesses and Romualdez’s camp countering with its own set of statements, the flood control scandal may now be entering its most consequential stage yet.
Leave a Reply