MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman has formally brought its case against former House Speaker and Leyte 1st District Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez before the Sandiganbayan, escalating the government’s investigation into alleged corruption surrounding multibillion-peso flood control projects.
The anti-graft agency filed the plunder case on Monday, September 7, against Romualdez and former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co. Investigators allege that the two were involved in coordinated acts that resulted in the accumulation of approximately P56 billion in alleged ill-gotten wealth from 2022 to 2025. Some of the alleged proceeds were supposedly delivered through cash-filled suitcases, according to investigators.
The filing marks a major new stage in one of the country’s biggest political corruption investigations, but it is important to stress that the allegations have yet to be proven in court. Romualdez has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and has maintained that he is prepared to answer the accusations through the proper legal process.
From flood control allegations to a court case
The Ombudsman’s case grew out of a broader investigation into allegedly anomalous flood control and infrastructure projects.
In July, the Ombudsman’s special panel submitted a supplemental complaint accusing Romualdez, Co and other respondents of plunder, graft and direct bribery. Investigators said they were looking into alleged diversion and misuse of public funds and the receipt of improper financial benefits connected with government transactions.
The investigators also recommended action involving alleged money laundering and indirect bribery. They claimed newly discovered evidence supported allegations involving large cash deliveries and said some of the money allegedly originated from “commitments” collected from government projects.
The July complaint placed the alleged amount at around P56 billion, covering transactions from 2022 through 2025—a period when Romualdez was House Speaker and Co chaired the House appropriations committee.
Ombudsman points to alleged network of companies
Investigators have also alleged that several corporate entities were used to move, hold or conceal funds connected with the alleged scheme.
According to the Ombudsman panel, some companies may have served as conduits for the alleged diversion and disposition of public money. Investigators further alleged the use of nominees, dummies and closely held corporations to acquire, transfer or conceal assets allegedly controlled by Romualdez and associates.
The panel cited testimony from former Department of Public Works and Highways Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo as part of the evidence it considered in developing the case.
The controversial “maleta” allegations
One of the most closely watched elements of the investigation involves allegations that cash was transported in suitcases, or “maleta.”
In 2025, former Marine and former security aide Orly Guteza claimed he personally delivered luggage containing money to residences associated with Co and Romualdez. Romualdez rejected the allegation as fabricated.
In February 2026, 18 people who identified themselves as former security personnel of Co also surfaced and alleged that they had delivered suitcases of cash to several personalities, including Romualdez and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
However, the credibility of some of these allegations later became a major point of dispute.
Guteza subsequently recanted his earlier allegations, while four of the 18 former security personnel also later withdrew their statements. Romualdez’s camp has repeatedly cited these recantations in arguing that the allegations against the former Speaker lack credible evidence.
The Ombudsman, however, has maintained that the investigation does not depend on a single witness. In August, the anti-graft agency said it had 28 witnesses with direct and material knowledge concerning the transactions being investigated.
Romualdez camp insists on due process
Romualdez’s lawyers have consistently denied the allegations and have challenged the evidence presented against him.
His camp previously sought the dismissal of the complaints, arguing that witness statements had been inconsistent and that several individuals had already recanted allegations involving alleged cash deliveries.
More recently, Romualdez’s lawyers also questioned the decision to drop former DPWH Secretary Manuel “Manny” Bonoan from a separate plunder case, amid reports that Bonoan could potentially become a witness against the former Speaker.
Romualdez’s legal team asked the Ombudsman to disclose whether Bonoan had provided any statement implicating their client and requested an opportunity to respond to any new allegations. The camp also sought information regarding the reported 28 witnesses cited by the Ombudsman.
Romualdez has repeatedly maintained that he had no involvement in corruption related to flood control projects and has said he is ready to prove his innocence.
What happens after the filing?
The filing before the Sandiganbayan does not mean Romualdez has been found guilty.
Under the Anti-Plunder Law, Republic Act No. 7080, plunder involves a public officer amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth of at least P50 million through a combination or series of specified criminal acts. The law places original jurisdiction over prosecutions under the statute with the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan will now handle the judicial phase of the case. Daily Tribune reported that Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano said the case was expected to be raffled on Monday afternoon.
That next stage could determine how the accusations formally proceed in court and what evidence the prosecution will present against the respondents.
A case with major political implications
The filing also comes amid intense political tensions surrounding the government’s crackdown on alleged corruption in flood control and infrastructure projects.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who is Romualdez’s cousin, previously said during his 2026 State of the Nation Address that cases involving his former House Speaker cousin would proceed. Romualdez has said he respects the President’s position while continuing to deny the accusations against him.
For the Ombudsman, the case represents a major test of its investigation into alleged corruption involving public infrastructure funds.
For Romualdez, it opens a potentially lengthy legal battle in which the prosecution must ultimately establish its allegations in court.
And for the public, the central question now shifts from whether charges would be filed to a far more consequential one:
Can the prosecution prove in court that the alleged P56-billion scheme actually existed—and establish Romualdez’s criminal responsibility beyond reasonable doubt?
WWC ONE MEDIA J.M.S
Leave a Reply