Former House Speaker Leyte 1st district Rep. Martin Romualdez highlighted that the people named as companions in alleged deliveries of cash-filled luggages or "maletas" have denied any part in such activities.

This was a major takeaway from Romualdez's Supplemental Counter-Affidavit Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam, which he recently lodged before the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Office of the Ombudsman--led by Jesus Crispin "Boying" Remulla--earlier said that it was looking at possible plunder charges against Romualdez in connection with alleged payoffs from anomalous or "ghost" flood control projects.

On page 7 of the ad cautelam ("for caution") filing, Romualdez stated, “In particular, two conflicting sets of claims again emerge.”

One set comes from Christopher Esquivel, Gil Navidad Jr. and Rodante Orbillo, who named people they said joined or accompanied them during alleged deliveries. The other comes from those named individuals.

“On the other hand, the very individuals named by Esquivel, Navidad, and Orbillo, have, under pain of perjury, categorically denied any such participation or involvement,” the filing read.

The first conflict concerns an alleged delivery on Nov. 21, 2023. Romualdez stated, “For instance, Esquivel identified…[a] driver who supposedly accompanied him during the 21 November 2023 delivery to No. 42 McKinley Road, but [the driver] has denied any such participation.”

The driver’s sworn statement indicated he had no knowledge, observation, experience, or role in carrying, delivering, turning over, or handling money, bulk amounts, or anything called a maleta.

A second conflict concerns an alleged delivery to No. 14 Narra. The filing noted, “Similarly, Navidad identified…a fellow driver during the delivery to No. 14 Narra, but [said driver] has likewise stated, under oath, that he has no knowledge of and was never part of any such delivery, nor was he ever instructed to deliver money to any politician or government official.”

Romualdez raised a third conflict involving five people on page 8. “Orbillo identified…individuals who accompanied him to deliver maletas. Contrary to such claim however, all five have disclaimed any involvement,” he said.

The filing stressed that these were not small differences, such as a vehicle’s color or the time of day. They test whether or not the alleged trips happened as described and whether the people placed at the scene support the story.

“The factual discrepancies do not concern immaterial and inconsequential details. They bear a direct relation to the chain supposedly linking me to the purported deliveries of cash-filled suitcases," Romualdez said.

The cross-denials also sit beside 25 new sworn statements from former Ako Bicol Party-list Rep. Zaldy Co personnel. Those affiants include drivers, close-in security personnel, riders, administrative and technical staff, and other employees.

Their stated service periods collectively run from 2019 to 2026. They denied any personal knowledge of or participation in the delivery of money or maletas to politicians or government officials.

The filing asks the Ombudsman to weigh the denials against the original accounts and decide whether the disputed testimony remains credible under the agency’s evidentiary rule.

Meanwhile, lawyer Antonio “Audie” Bucoy, a former House impeachment spokesperson, questioned on Wednesday, Aug. 26 Remulla’s motive for pursuing Romualdez despite the recent developments in the case.

According to Bucoy, Remulla appeared to have “zero” evidence against the two-time former Speaker. He went as far to say that the Ombudsman may be driven by a “personal motivation".

Bucoy said that with the retraction of the allegations against Romualdez by four “Maleta Boys", Senate Blue Ribbon Committee witness Orly Guteza, and 25 former aides of Co, the Ombudsman simply has no case.

“Yung 25, lahat ito ay (nagsabing) gawa-gawa lamang at kathang isip (ang alegasyon nila). So ngayon, ano ang natitirang ebidensiya laban kay Speaker Romualdez? Magaling tayo sa math, kahit mahina tayo sa math, anong sagot? Zero, wala na ho,” he said in a radio interview. 

(The 25 witnesses all said that these were merely fabricated and fictional allegations. So now, what evidence remains against Speaker Romualdez? We’re good at math, even if we’re not good at math, what’s the answer? Zero. There’s nothing left.)

Moreover, the public interest and human rights lawyer pointed out that no contractor and no official of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) have linked Romualdez to the flood control scam.

He noted that even ex-DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan has made no allegation against Romualdez. There is also no ghost or substandard project being linked to the Leyte congressman, he added.

“Ang malinaw ho dito eh parang pinipersonal na niya ang Speaker eh. Hindi ko alam…kung bakit niya iginigiit na si dating speaker Romualdez ay may pananagutan,” he said.

(What is clear here is that he seems to be taking this personally against the Speaker. I don’t know why he insists that former Speaker Romualdez is accountable.)

“Ako ho ay para sa pananagutan. Subalit ang pananagutan ho ay dapat batay sa matibay, katanggap-tanggap at may kredibilidad na katibayan. Yan ho ang mahalaga,” Bucoy said.

(I am in favor of accountability. But accountability must be based on solid, admissible, and credible evidence. That is what matters.)