By Ellson Quismorio
Former House Speaker, Leyte 1st district Rep. Martin Romualdez is pressing the Office of the Ombudsman to make up its mind whether or not the supposed evidence it has against him can stand on its legs.
In the 25-page Supplemental Counter-Affidavit Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam, filed last Thursday, Aug. 20, Romualdez argued that the Ombudsman cannot file a case first and then leave serious conflicts in sworn accounts for a trial court to sort out later.
In particular, the Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats (Lakas-CMD) president asked the Ombudsman to weigh a case that now includes 32 sworn statements.
These include three recantations, two supporting statements, 25 new affidavits of denial and non-participation, the earlier sworn statement of Allan Colesio – an ex-aide of former Ako Bicol Party-list Rep. Zaldy Co – and Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Orly Guteza’s recantation.
Romualdez said that together, the statements challenge the personal knowledge and credibility of witnesses used to connect him to alleged deliveries of cash-filled suitcases that were supposedly payoffs for anomalous or “ghost” flood control projects.
As such, the Ex-Speaker asked the Ombudsman to identify what admissible, credible, and preservable evidence remains after the recantations and direct denials. If that record cannot meet the agency’s own rule, Romualdez said, the complaints should be dismissed.
The Ombudsman earlier said that it was looking at possible plunder charges against Romualdez.
The ad cautelam (“for caution”) filing argues that the Ombudsman must weigh those challenges under its own 2026 Revised Rules of Procedure before filing any Information.
On page 16 of the filing, Romualdez stated, “Faced with these statements that cast doubt on the truth of the allegations in the Complaints, this Honorable Office cannot have basis to satisfy the standard of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction required under Section 3, Rule V of the 2026 Ombudsman Rules of Procedure.”
The filing argues that this threshold is higher than the former probable-cause standard.
On page 22, it stated, “The evidentiary standard of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction was deliberately designed to elevate, and not merely restate, the former standard of probable cause.”
The Ombudsman’s official rule requires prosecutors to evaluate the full record, including a respondent’s counter-affidavit.
Contrasting the new rule with the old standard, the filing stated on page 22 that “The former expressly requires this Honorable Office to already assess admissibility and credibility before an Information may issue, not to defer that assessment to trial.”
The supplemental filing also reproduced the rule’s definition. It stated that the “entirety of evidence presented by the parties is (a) admissible, (b) credible, and (c) capable of being preserved and presented to establish all the elements of the crime or offense, as well as the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor.”
The supplemental filing stressed that language makes credibility an immediate duty.
On page 22, Romualdez stated, “Admissibility and credibility are thus not concerns reserved for the trial court; they are integral to this Honorable Office’s own determination of whether a case should be filed at all.”
The filing says the changed record includes alleged delivery companions who deny taking part, former aides who deny knowledge of cash deliveries, three witnesses who withdrew earlier statements, and Guteza who disowned the alleged eyewitness link to Romualdez.
It also says no contractor has stated that money was paid to Romualdez, no DPWH official has said he demanded or received a kickback, no identified project has been traced to a payment to him, and no financial record has traced alleged unlawful proceeds to his assets.
The ad cautelam filing further stated, “This is not a matter that can be set aside for resolution at some future trial; it is a defect in the evidence as it stands today, and it is precisely the kind of defect that Section 3, Rule V was written to catch before an Information is ever filed.”
