MANILA, Philippines — The legal battle surrounding the multibillion-peso flood control controversy has entered a new phase after the camp of former House Speaker and Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez asked the Office of the Ombudsman to disclose whether former Public Works Secretary Manuel “Manny” Bonoan has made any allegations against him.
Romualdez’s lawyer, Ade Fajardo, said the lawmaker should be given sufficient time to respond to any new accusations that may emerge from Bonoan, particularly as the former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) chief is now outside detention and could potentially serve as a government witness.
“We are requesting the Ombudsman to inform us if there is any allegation from Secretary Bonoan against former Speaker Romualdez and to give us ample time to comment on it,” Fajardo said.
The appeal comes amid renewed scrutiny of the Ombudsman’s effort to use Bonoan in its broader investigation into alleged corruption involving flood control and infrastructure projects.
Bonoan’s release adds fuel to the controversy
The issue intensified after the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division removed Bonoan as an accused in the P573-million plunder and graft cases connected to alleged kickbacks from flood control projects.
The court subsequently ordered his release from detention. Bonoan had been under hospital arrest at the Philippine National Police General Hospital in Camp Crame.
The decision was not unanimous.
Justice Gener Gito dissented from the Fifth Division’s 2-1 ruling, questioning whether the court had been given enough information about how Bonoan would cooperate with prosecutors, what information he would provide and which cases his testimony would be used in.
The development has made Bonoan’s possible role as a state witness a major point of contention in the ongoing flood-control investigation.
Why Romualdez’s camp is concerned
Fajardo has repeatedly argued that previous investigations and hearings did not establish a direct link between Romualdez and specific anomalous flood-control projects.
The Romualdez camp has also pointed to the recantations or disputed statements of several individuals previously presented as witnesses in the alleged cash-delivery scheme involving so-called “Maleta Boys.” The camp maintains that these developments weaken the accusations against the Leyte lawmaker.
The Philippine News Agency previously reported that Romualdez’s lawyers maintained that no DPWH official had identified the congressman as participating in the planning, procurement, implementation, inspection, payment or release of funds for an alleged ghost flood-control project.
Romualdez’s lawyers have consistently said he is prepared to face any complaint through the proper legal process.
Ombudsman says Bonoan could strengthen its case
The Ombudsman, meanwhile, has previously defended its decision to explore using Bonoan as a state witness.
Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano said in June that Bonoan occupied a potentially important position because he had served as DPWH secretary and could possess information relevant to the alleged infrastructure scheme.
Clavano acknowledged that seeking Bonoan’s cooperation was intended, among other things, to strengthen the government’s case against Romualdez.
The move has nevertheless generated controversy because Bonoan himself had been facing criminal accusations connected to the flood-control scandal.
Bonoan still faces another graft case
Bonoan’s removal from the Fifth Division cases does not mean all criminal proceedings against him have disappeared.
He remains an accused in a separate graft case before the Sandiganbayan Second Division. On September 4, he pleaded not guilty in that remaining case involving alleged kickbacks connected to flood-control projects.
This distinction is important: his release from detention followed his exclusion from the Fifth Division cases, while a separate case remains pending.
The bigger question: what will Bonoan actually say?
At the heart of the controversy is not simply whether Bonoan could become a state witness, but what evidence he may actually provide.
The Philippine Star previously reported that Ombudsman officials wanted Bonoan to help establish cases against higher-ranking personalities, including Romualdez. At the same time, questions have been raised publicly about the conditions under which Bonoan could receive state-witness treatment and whether restitution of alleged ill-gotten funds should form part of any arrangement.
For Romualdez’s camp, the answer is straightforward: if Bonoan has new allegations, Romualdez should be told what they are and given a meaningful opportunity to respond.
That could become particularly significant if the Ombudsman eventually relies on Bonoan’s testimony to support formal charges or strengthen existing complaints against the former House speaker.
What happens next?
The Ombudsman investigation remains ongoing, and the competing narratives are now sharply defined.
Romualdez’s camp says the evidence against him remains insufficient and insists that any accusation must be tested through due process.
The government, meanwhile, is pursuing a broader corruption case involving alleged irregularities in infrastructure and flood-control projects and sees Bonoan as potentially valuable to that effort.
The next major question may therefore be what, if anything, Bonoan tells investigators about Romualdez — and whether those statements are supported by independent documentary or testimonial evidence.
Until such evidence is formally presented and evaluated, allegations against Romualdez remain allegations, not established findings of guilt.
WWC ONE MEDIA J.M.S
Leave a Reply