'No forensic evidence': Ex-IBP president slams Ombudsman's probe on Romualdez
At A Glance
- Ade Fajardo criticizes the Ombudsman's investigation, saying it has been ongoing for months without forensic, object, or documentary evidence linking former Speaker Romualdez.
- He highlights reliance on oral testimony, calling it unreliable as several "Maleta Boys" and Orly Guteza retract their earlier claims, while others allege inducements for recantations.
- Fajardo labels the case a "non-case", stressing the conflicting stories, citing perjury and cyberlibel charges against witnesses, and asserting Romualdez has answered the accusations and will submit new affidavits.
Lawyer Ade Fajardo (Ellson Quismorio/ MANILA BULLETIN)
A former national president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has criticized the quality--of lack thereof--of the Ombudsman's investigation on Leyte 1st district Rep. Martin Romualdez when it comes to the flood control projects mess.
Lawyer Ade Fajardo, Romualdez's legal counsel, said the investigation had been ongoing for months now. He noted that the Ombudsman had broad authority to summon witnesses and obtain records.
“Ang kapansin-pansin lang dito is this investigation has been going on for several months. Lumalabas, wala man lang forensic evidence or object or documentary evidence linking the former Speaker,” he said in a press conference Thursday, Aug. 20.
(The investigation has been going on for several months. It turns out, there is no forensic evidence or object or documentary evidence linking the former Speaker.)
Fajardo slammed what he described as reliance on oral accounts that had changed over time.
"Alam naman natin, ito iyong pinaka-unreliable (We know is the most unreliable). That's why we have laws on perjury, libel, et cetera, kasi (because) these things are easily manufactured,” he said.
Four of the original 18 “Maleta Boys”--accusers of Romualdez when it comes to alleged flood control payoffs--earlier recanted.
Guteza, who separately testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in September 2025 that he delivered suitcases ("maleta") containing cash to Romualdez, also withdrew his allegation in a new affidavit reported on Aug. 19.
Other witnesses have stood by their earlier statements. One alleged that millions of pesos had been offered to induce recantations, while lawyer Levi Baligod submitted a flash drive that he said was relevant to the reversals.
Romualdez's camp denied influencing or paying any witness.
'Non-case'
The recantations have led Fajardo to call the Ombudsman's supposed case a "non-case".
"It should be dismissed kasi wala nang ebidensya maliban sa kuwento, at ang kuwento ay iba-iba; ang kuwento ay nababaliktad.”
(It should be dismissed because there is no evidence other than stories, and the stories are inconsistent; the stories are being retracted.)
The ex-speaker's lawyer added that individuals had been included or removed from the accounts as the political climate changed. Fajardo also cited the cyberlibel and perjury cases filed against Baligod and members of the witness group.
He said government agencies, including the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), had pursued cyberlibel and perjury cases against members of the group.
The perjury complaints concern allegedly false statements made by the witnesses in separate settings. They do not replace the Ombudsman's obligation to evaluate the alleged cash-delivery scheme on its own evidence, just as the recantations do not automatically erase the earlier accounts.
Fajardo said Romualdez had answered the accusations and would submit the latest affidavits for consideration.