MANILA – The camp of former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez has asked the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the plunder complaint against him, arguing that the allegations rely largely on conflicting witness accounts and lack forensic or documentary evidence directly connecting him to the alleged delivery of cash from anomalous flood control projects.

Romualdez’s lawyers filed a supplemental counter-affidavit with the Ombudsman on Thursday, incorporating the reported recantation of retired Marine T/Sgt. Orly Guteza and sworn statements from 25 former drivers, security personnel and close-in aides associated with former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Zaldy Co.

Lawyer Ade Fajardo, Romualdez’s spokesperson and one of his counsel, said the latest submissions further support the defense’s position that there is no hard evidence linking the former Speaker to the alleged cash deliveries.

“Hindi namin ma-predict, hindi namin mahulaan kung sino pa ang babaliktad o sino pa ang magsasabi ng katotohanan (We cannot predict, we cannot guess who else would retract or who else would say the truth),” Fajardo told reporters during a press conference.

He said the Ombudsman investigation had been ongoing for months and that the agency had the authority to summon witnesses and secure documentary and other records.

“Ang kapansin-pansin lang dito (What is noticeable here) is this investigation has been going on for several months,” he said. “Lumalabas, wala man lang (It appears, there’s no) forensic evidence or object or documentary evidence linking the former Speaker.”

Fajardo questioned the reliability of oral testimony, particularly where witnesses have subsequently changed their accounts.

“It’s a non-case,” Fajardo said. “It should be dismissed kasi wala nang ebidensya maliban sa kuwento, at ang kuwento ay iba-iba; ang kuwento ay nababaliktad (no evidence aside from narratives, and the narratives varied; the stories are being reversed).”

He said the accounts appeared to change as the political circumstances surrounding the investigation evolved.

Guteza, who testified before the Senate in September 2025 that he delivered suitcases containing cash to Romualdez, said in an affidavit dated Aug. 13 that he had no personal knowledge of such deliveries.

He also claimed that Sen. Rodante Marcoleta and former Anakalusugan party-list Rep. Mike Defensor fabricated the account and offered him P150 million and scholarships for his children.

“Out of fear and anxiety, everything stated in the affidavit they prepared was something I claimed to have witnessed, even though it was not true; this included the statement that I took part in three deliveries of suitcases to the alleged residence of Speaker Martin Romualdez. I never had any direct contact with Speaker Romualdez, nor did I even see him at that address,” Guteza said.

Fajardo said Guteza’s recantation would be attached to Romualdez’s supplemental counter-affidavit, along with statements from 25 individuals formerly associated with Co who dispute allegations that suitcases containing millions of pesos were delivered to Romualdez.

The original allegations stemmed from a joint affidavit submitted by lawyer Levito Baligod, who previously represented 18 former Co aides referred to as the “Maleta Boys.”

Baligod alleged that the men delivered suitcases containing billions of pesos in kickbacks from allegedly anomalous flood control projects to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Romualdez and other officials between 2022 and 2025. Both Marcos and Romualdez have denied the allegations.

Four of the original 18 witnesses have previously withdrawn their allegations against Romualdez. Baligod has claimed that some witnesses were offered P10 million each to recant, although he did not identify the alleged source of the money.

The Ombudsman, however, said Guteza’s recantation would not determine the outcome of its investigation.

“Recantations in high-profile cases are nothing new,” the Ombudsman said. “This is a classic pressure tactic.”

The anti-graft agency said it had included statements from eight of the 18 “Maleta Boys” in the evidence against Romualdez and would not rely on only one or a few witnesses.

“The Office of the Ombudsman is informing [the public] that it has 28 witnesses ready to provide direct and material knowledge regarding the transactions being investigated in the case involving former Speaker Martin Romualdez,” it said.

The Ombudsman said the 28 witnesses are active uniformed personnel currently undergoing legal processes and stressed that cooperation with an official investigation is an obligation under the law.

“Anyone who dares to obstruct, interfere with, or disrupt the Ombudsman’s proceedings will face the full force of the law,” it warned. “The search for the truth will not stop, even if some people are still unwilling to speak.”

The Ombudsman filed a supplemental complaint-affidavit on July 20 accusing Romualdez, Co and several others of plunder, direct bribery, graft and corruption, and money laundering over alleged kickbacks from flood control projects implemented from 2022 to 2025.

Fajardo maintained that the allegations against Romualdez were primarily based on oral testimony.

He also cited cyberlibel and perjury cases filed against Baligod and members of the witness group, saying government agencies including the National Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice had pursued cases involving allegedly false or defamatory statements.

Fajardo argued that Romualdez’s position as House Speaker did not by itself establish involvement in an alleged illegal transaction.

“Ang parang umiikot lang ang kuwento sa the fact na (it’s like the story revolves around the fact that) he was Speaker of the House when Zaldy Co was appropriations chair,” he said.

He added that congressional budgeting is a collective process involving the House of Representatives, Senate and executive branch.

Ombudsman urged to weigh evidence

Fajardo also called on the Ombudsman to ensure that its eventual resolution is based on a complete and impartial assessment of the evidence rather than a predetermined conclusion.

“Dapat hindi ganoon ang pagkakasabi. Dapat hindi pre-ordained ang resulta (It shouldn’t be said that way. The result should not be pre-ordained). We can only hope for fairness),” Fajardo said.

The Ombudsman ordered Romualdez and his co-respondents in July to submit counter-affidavits in response to the complaints. Romualdez filed his initial counter-affidavit on Aug. 7, while his supplemental filing was submitted Thursday after the defense sought additional time.

The filing of counter-affidavits forms part of the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation and does not mean that criminal charges have already been filed in court or that any respondent has been found guilty.

The Ombudsman is expected to evaluate the complaints, counter-affidavits, witness recantations and other corroborating or conflicting evidence before issuing a resolution.

Fajardo said Romualdez had already responded to the allegations identified by the Ombudsman’s special panel of investigators.

“Actually, all the allegations have officially been made already kasi iyong Ombudsman ay may tinatawag na (because the Ombudsman has what is known as) special panel of investigators,” he said.

Meanwhile, Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano said the four “Maleta Boys” who withdrew their statements could also be considered in the plunder complaint against Romualdez.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo, who now chairs the Senate blue ribbon committee that previously heard Guteza’s testimony, said it would be up to the Ombudsman to determine whether the former Marine should face charges over his recantation.

“Anything that has to do with the blue ribbon’s flood control investigation, we have forwarded to the [Ombudsman] already,” Tulfo said.

Tulfo also welcomed Guteza’s retraction, saying the statement had been false and damaging to those implicated in his testimony.