The camp of former House Speaker and Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez is again calling on the Office of the Ombudsman to ensure fairness, impartiality and due process as the investigation into the multibillion-peso flood control controversy moves forward.
In a statement reported by Bombo Radyo on September 6, Romualdez’s lawyer and spokesperson, Atty. Ade Fajardo, said the former House leader should be given sufficient time and opportunity to respond to any new allegations, including those that could come from former Public Works Secretary Manuel Bonoan or the 28 witnesses the Ombudsman has said possess material information in the case.
The appeal comes as the investigation becomes increasingly complicated, with witnesses changing or withdrawing earlier statements while the Ombudsman maintains that it still has evidence and witnesses supporting its probe.
Romualdez Camp: Let Him Answer Before Conclusions Are Made
Fajardo said the Romualdez camp wants to know what new allegations may emerge and insists that the defense should be given adequate time to answer them while the case remains under preliminary investigation.
The lawyer emphasized that due process should not begin only after a case reaches court. The defense, he argued, should be able to respond while prosecutors are still determining whether the evidence is sufficient to proceed.
That position echoes the camp’s earlier accusations that Ombudsman officials have made public statements that could create an impression that Romualdez has already been judged.
In September 1 remarks reported by GMA News, Fajardo said the camp was concerned that the Ombudsman’s public statements appeared to suggest a conclusion had already been reached before all evidence and defenses had been evaluated.
The Ombudsman has rejected that characterization and maintained that its investigation is based on evidence.
The 28 Witnesses Are Now a Major Focus
One of the biggest unresolved questions is the identity and testimony of the 28 witnesses cited by the Ombudsman.
The anti-graft body said in August that the investigation did not depend on one witness, following the recantation of former Marine and ex-security aide Orly Guteza, who had previously made allegations connecting Romualdez to alleged cash deliveries.
The Ombudsman said the 28 witnesses had direct and material information concerning transactions under investigation and were already undergoing legal processes.
Romualdez’s camp, however, has repeatedly questioned why the defense has not been given details of these witnesses and their allegations.
The Philippine News Agency reported in August that Fajardo said the camp had not yet seen or identified the 28 witnesses referred to by the Ombudsman.
That dispute is now central to the fairness argument being raised by the defense.
Bonoan Could Become a Crucial Piece of the Investigation
Another potentially important development involves Manuel Bonoan, the former Department of Public Works and Highways secretary.
The Ombudsman previously said it was considering Bonoan as a state witness, arguing that his potential cooperation could help investigators establish how the alleged scheme operated and identify higher-ranking officials who may have played roles in it.
Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano said Bonoan’s alleged conversations with members of House leadership could be important because investigators may not always find a documentary trail for alleged agreements or instructions.
However, becoming a state witness is not automatic. GMA News reported that the law requires conditions including that the testimony be absolutely necessary, that there be no other direct evidence available for the offense, and that the testimony can be substantially corroborated by other evidence.
That means any testimony Bonoan provides would still have to be evaluated within the legal process.
Witness Recantations Have Complicated the Case
The defense has repeatedly pointed to witness recantations as a major weakness in the allegations against Romualdez.
Former Marine Orly Guteza, one of the witnesses who previously alleged cash deliveries, later executed an affidavit withdrawing his accusations. Romualdez’s camp has also cited statements from other former personnel associated with former Ako Bicol party-list lawmaker Zaldy Co.
GMA News reported that Romualdez submitted a supplemental counter-affidavit containing statements from 25 individuals who the defense says dispute allegations involving alleged suitcase deliveries.
But the Ombudsman has argued that the recantation of one or several witnesses does not automatically collapse the entire investigation.
The agency has said it has other witnesses and supporting evidence that it considers relevant to the case.
That is why the evidence battle is far from settled.
Romualdez Says the Evidence Should Speak
Romualdez has consistently denied wrongdoing.
During President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s 2026 State of the Nation Address, when the President acknowledged that cases against his cousin were expected to proceed, Romualdez said he respected the President’s position but maintained that he had never asked for special treatment.
He also said the proper approach was to follow due process and allow the evidence to determine the outcome.
The former Speaker has also argued that Congress does not independently control the entire national budget process, nor does it directly implement, procure or inspect flood-control projects.
Those arguments form part of the defense’s broader position that allegations of corruption must be tied to specific evidence showing his personal participation.
But the Ombudsman Has Not Backed Down
Despite the defense’s challenges, the Ombudsman has continued its investigation.
The agency previously said that it had 28 witnesses with material information despite the recantation of Guteza.
It has also maintained that investigators are examining more than individual testimonies and are seeking corroborating evidence.
That is important because the current controversy is not simply about whether a particular witness is credible.
The ultimate question is whether the totality of evidence — testimony, documents, financial records and other corroborating material — is sufficient to establish probable cause.
The Bigger Flood Control Scandal
The Romualdez investigation is part of the government’s much broader probe into alleged irregularities involving flood-control projects.
President Marcos placed the issue at the center of his recent national addresses after allegations emerged that public funds intended for flood protection infrastructure had been misused or diverted.
GMA News has reported that the government identified thousands of flood-control projects and alleged that a relatively small group of contractors captured a substantial portion of project spending.
The controversy has since expanded into investigations involving contractors, government officials and lawmakers.
Romualdez is among the most politically prominent figures being investigated.
What Happens Next Could Be Crucial
The immediate battle is now over evidence and procedure.
Romualdez’s camp wants the Ombudsman to ensure that any new accusations are disclosed and that the defense receives enough time to respond.
The Ombudsman, meanwhile, says its investigation cannot be reduced to the testimony of one or several witnesses and that it has additional evidence and witnesses to examine.
Neither side has won that argument yet.
And importantly, being investigated or accused does not mean Romualdez has been found guilty. The preliminary investigation is intended to determine whether there is sufficient basis to proceed with criminal charges.
The bottom line
The Romualdez-Ombudsman confrontation is entering a potentially decisive stage.
The defense is demanding what it calls a fair and impartial process. The Ombudsman insists it is following evidence and has additional witnesses. Meanwhile, the possible role of Manuel Bonoan and the continuing dispute over witness recantations could significantly affect the direction of the investigation.
For now, the central question remains unanswered:
Will the next batch of evidence strengthen the Ombudsman’s case — or give Romualdez’s camp the opening it needs to challenge the entire investigation?
WWC ONE MEDIA M.J.E
Leave a Reply