Leyte 1st district Rep. Martin Romualdez has argued that the Office of the Ombudsman cannot simply brush aside sworn recantations of individuals like they mean nothing.

In his recent Supplemental Counter-Affidavit Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam, Romualdez says the Ombudsman must assess both the original statement and recantation even as it is still deciding on whether or not to file a case.

On page 16 of the filing submitted last Aug. 20, Romualdez stated, “While the Honorable Office through the Ombudsman in a press conference has already expressed its position that the Recantation Affidavits neither strengthen nor weaken its case against me, and that recantations are viewed by the courts with disfavor, it bears noting that such principle of disfavor applies only when recantation occurs during trial or after a judgment of conviction, and not beforehand.”

It went on to quote Balderama vs. People and stated that “The Supreme Court explained that ‘The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court,’ and that ‘an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only scant attention.’”

The present case is at a different stage, the former two-time House Speaker argues. “No trial has taken place, no testimony has been given in court, and no judgment of conviction exists to retract from,” read his ad cautelam ("for caution") filing.

Led by Jesus Crispin "Boying" Remulla, the Office of the Ombudsman earlier said that it was looking at possible plunder charges against Romualdez. 

For Romualdez, timing matters, and he also points out that new statements are not being used to erase a verdict after evidence has been tested.

Instead they were submitted during the preliminary investigation, before the Ombudsman decided whether the evidence were admissible, credible, and sufficient to support a reasonable certainty of conviction.

On page 17, Romualdez called this “the very stage where such sworn recantations and denials carry the most, not the least, evidentiary weight, since they go directly to whether the case should proceed to trial in the first place".

He says the filing does not ask investigators to automatically believe every later statement. Rather, it asks them to compare the versions, examine how each was made, and determine why it changed.

“The previous and subsequent accounts must be juxtaposed, the circumstances under which each was made carefully scrutinized, and the reasons or motives for the change discriminatingly analyzed, ”

Romualdez, Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats (Lakas-CMD) president,says the comparison is crucial for Senate Blue Ribbon Committee witness Orly Guteza. Guteza had ealier claimed that he delivered cash-filled luggages or "maletas" to the ex-Speaker as payoffs from anomalous or "ghost" flood control projects.

Guteza later swore that the story was pressed upon him despite his lack of personal knowledge and named former Anakalusugan Party-list Rep. Mike Defensor, Defensor’s son-in-law, and Senator Rodante Marcoleta in his account of how the earlier affidavit was prepared.

In a related development, Senator Panfilo Lacson said Guteza’s retraction was unsurprising because he had observed "coaching" in the Sept. 25, 2025 Senate hearing that the latter attended. Lacson also said a subornation-of-perjury inquiry involving Marcoleta and Defensor may be warranted if the allegations are proved.

Romualdez's filing said the Ombudsman relied on Guteza's original remarks without first testing his account directly.

He underscores that he is asking for equal scrutiny before the Ombudsman files is filed. He said the Ombudsman should at the very least test the recantations, not cast them aside.

In a chance interview with House reporters Tuesday, Aug. 25 after the Ombudsman's budget hearing, Remulla said the recantations change nothing, and that they have more witnesses and evidence against Romualdez.