The Sandiganbayan has ordered the prosecution and lawyers of the accused in criminal cases involving the “anomalous” flood control projects to refrain from releasing statements to the media that may violate the sub-judice rule.

In a resolution issued by its fifth division, the anti-graft court said: "All the parties are directed to refrain from granting interviews or making statements bearing on the merits of the case which may violate the sub-judice rule."

The sub judice rule is a legal principle that restricts public comments and discussions about pending court cases to prevent prejudicing the outcome to ensure fair trials and maintain judicial integrity. It applies to lawyers, litigants, the media, and the public.

The court’s directive was issued after a press briefer dated Dec. 1, 2025 was issued through GMA News Online by Lim & Yutatco-Sze Law Firm, counsel of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Region IV-B officials and other persons accused in a flood control project.

Aside from the DPWH officials, the main accused in the case is resigned congressman Zaldy Co who has been at large and has been declared a fugitive from justice.

The prosecution told the Sandiganbayan the press briefer was "in flagrant disregard of the sub-judice rule," as it was an intent to resort to a "trial by publicity."

However, the law firm filed a motion to admit apologies as it pointed out that the press briefer was issued solely to correct misconceptions online regarding the circumstances of the accused's arrest. The law firm also said that its lawyers acted without malice.

The Sandiganbayan denied the prosecution's manifestation with motion as it pointed out that the press briefer did not violate the sub-judice rule.

"There is likewise nothing in the attendant circumstances or the briefer itself with which the court may say that there is a serious or imminent threat towards its administration of justice, otherwise stated, there is a lack of clear and present danger," the resolution stated.

It also stated: "Indeed, the briefer itself contains no criticism of this court but is rather in response to 'what has been circulating in different media outlets.'"

But the anti-graft court noted with serious concern that a portion of the briefer "squarely advances claims bearing on the defenses of the accused... that may possibly run afoul."

Thus, the court decided to direct both parties involved to be more careful with details of the case.

The nine-page resolution was written by Fifth Division Chairperson Associate Justice Zaldy V. Trespeses with the concurrence of Associate Justices Gener M. Gito and Kevin Narce B. Vivero.