The camp of Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. believes that practically zero evidence has been produced so far against the former senator in connection with anomalous flood control projects in Pandi, Bulacan after a week's worth of bail hearings at the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court.

Since the hearings began on April 6, 2026, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has called nine witnesses to oppose Revilla’s petition for bail. However, none have been able to establish any involvement by the former senator in the disputed project.

The first witness was Atty. Ivan Samson, an investigator with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), who led the inquiry into alleged irregularities surrounding the flood control works. Following him, engineers from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Bulacan 1st District Engineering Office—Engr. Aldous Santos and Engr. Kenneth Fernando—testified, offering technical details about the project.

At one point, the court issued subpoenas to additional DPWH officials to resolve discrepancies about the project’s location. This came after Engr. Fernando identified a site different from those earlier cited by Atty. Samson and Engr. Santos, both of whom had conducted inspections.

Fernando also noted that the site inspected by the NBI and Santos appeared to show a completed structure, raising doubts about whether the project was truly “ghost.” The coordinates listed in official records remain under review.

On April 8, 2026, state witness Sally Santos of SYMS Construction testified that she delivered money to former DPWH engineer Brice Hernandez. She clarified, however, that she does not know Revilla personally and has never transacted with him.

To streamline the proceedings, both sides agreed to stipulate the testimonies of several witnesses: Diana Garcia and Engr. Jay-Ar Amazona of the DPWH Bulacan 1st District Engineering Office, Agnes Carlos of the Land Bank of the Philippines Malolos Highway Branch, and Cresencia Sunga of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). These witnesses authenticated documents in their custody but admitted they had no direct knowledge of the project itself.

Revilla’s defense team emphasized that even the prosecution’s documentary evidence fails to tie him to the case, pointing out that his name and signature are absent from all records submitted.

The prosecution has not yet finished presenting its witnesses and is expected to call former Bulacan District Engineer Henry Alcantara when hearings resume on April 17, 2026. The OSP has until April 24, 2026 to complete its evidence in the bail proceedings, after which the court will decide on Revilla’s application. His camp remains confident that bail will be granted, allowing his release while trial continues.

Revilla’s counsel, lawyer Reody Balisi, has repeatedly stressed that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate any link between his client and the alleged irregularities. “We have seen from the testimonies and even from the prosecution’s own documents that there is no participation at all on the part of the former senator,” Balisi said at the start of the bail hearings.

Balisi pointed out that early witness testimonies even supported the defense’s position, noting that Revilla had no involvement in the procurement or implementation of the Pandi flood control project.

The lawyer also emphasized that testimony indicated actual construction took place, which undermines claims that the project was “ghost” or non-existent. He argued that no evidence directly linking Revilla to the project has been presented, reinforcing the defense’s assertion that the case against him is weak.