The recent revelations of former Ako Bicol Partylist Representative Zaldy Co that, allegedly, former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and even President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself had a hand in the highly controversial budget insertions came like a meteorite out of nowhere hitting the administration in the head.

Already mired in more unrest than the country has ever seen since the backlash from the Ninoy Aquino assassination, the present government needed that “CO-nfession” like a hole in the head.

The government apologists were quick to take action. Those were the acts of a desperate man trying to save himself as evidence mounted against him in the Blue Ribbon Committee and besides, they were all lies, the official Palace mouthpiece promptly intoned in her own inimitable, gratingly irritating voice.

It’s a conspiracy, the pro-Malacañang commentators and troll farm denizens chimed in, timed to inflame the passions of those already planning a possible overthrow of the government starting 16 November. Pro-government trolls noticeably and substantially increased their activities threefold after Co’s multipart video went viral mere hours after its release.

Actually, the tell-all video’s debut was, in all probability, made to synchronize with the reopening of the Blue Ribbon Committee investigation into “Floodgate” and presumably after Co got piqued when BRC Chair Ping Lacson disinvited him from the hearings on the grounds that his testimony via Zoom would not be under oath.

Never mind that on other occasions during Sen. Hontiveros’ committee’s investigations on POGO and Pastor Quiboloy, other witnesses similarly situated (through Zoom and not sworn to) were allowed to participate.

Lacson’s decision gave rise to accusations, not only of a double standard but of trying to cover up for some personalities mentioned by Co, thereby reinforcing festering charges of bias against him. And the malicious-minded could not be faulted for saying that it was meant to spite Co’s former mentor (and now tormentor) Romualdez, on whose birthday the release of the revelations was made.

All of the above, however, detract from the intrinsic worth of Co’s asseverations. Many have asked me if they have any evidentiary value at all. This after Ombudsman Boying Remulla made a baffling official statement — that looked more like a political press release- — that there is a process before investigations by his office may be initiated, and forcefully calling on Co to come home.

Actually, Remulla is wrong. He may already act on Co’s videos (there are several parts) by taking them at face value. Under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1988, that office may act even on ANONYMOUS complaints, as long as there are details on which to base an investigation. Since that is so, then Co’s oeuvre is much better than an anonymous denunciation: the accuser is definitely identified and there is no dearth of details on which to start an inquiry.

If the problem of the BRC is the fact that Co’s statements are not under oath, since the BRC proceedings are in aid of legislation, it may likewise be considered as input into the making of prospective laws, as legislative inquiries are not subject to the same strict laws of evidence as the courts. And if Co is in a country that is a signatory to the Apostille Convention of The Hague, then, with the proper authentication, it may be sent here and given the same full weight and credit as if it were an affidavit executed in the Philippines.

But whatever it may be, there is no denying that the fallout from the multiple pasabog of Co has rained stones down on the heads of so many officials in the present government, giving them multiple bukol (lumps) that will take a long time to heal, if ever.