Will the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee’s flood control investigation eventually lead to the President?

Testimony during the panel’s 19 January hearing has renewed scrutiny of the Forbes Park mansion at 30 Tamarind Road. The address was earlier mentioned by expelled Representative Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co as a “drop-off” point of funds taken from flood control projects.

Co claimed the supposed endpoint for the money was another property in South Forbes Park along Narra Avenue allegedly owned by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

At Monday’s hearing of the committee chaired by Senator Panfilo Lacson, two surprise witnesses, identified only as “Maria” and “Joy,” testified about events involving the Tamarind Road property, which confirmed some aspects of Co’s narrative.

The two said they were ordered to vacate the house, with the notice sent via email to their boss, Ricco Ocampo, by the Ocampo, Manalo, Valdez and Lim law firm.

The witnesses said they worked for businessman Ricco Ocampo whom they described as the long-time tenant of the property.

They said shipping magnate Doris Magsaysay-Ho owned the house and that broker TJ Conti of Turnkey Properties told them in January 2024 that it had been sold. They were given until 31 January to vacate the property.

The following day, they said, a man later identified as Curlee Discaya was introduced to them. When they asked for more time to move out, Discaya allegedly told them he was only a contractor facing deadlines.

When they sought to appeal to the new owner, the witnesses recalled Discaya saying that the buyer was former Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Discaya, who has been linked to alleged irregular flood control projects, denied the account. He said he had never been to South Forbes Park. He also denied instructing any broker to act on his behalf.

“I have never even entered South Forbes Park, not even once. I don’t even know what kind of houses there are there. I did not instruct any broker because I’m afraid to buy property in that area,” Discaya told senators.

‘Drop-off point’

Beyond the eviction narrative, the Tamarind Road house was tied to a more explosive allegation raised earlier by Co in a series of video posts.

In a video dated 24 November 2025, Co claimed that Romualdez instructed him to deliver cash to 30 Tamarind Road. He described it as a “drop-off” point near the President’s residence.

“My instruction from former speaker Martin Romualdez was to bring it to No. 30 Tamarind Street, South Forbes Park, and hand it over to Undersecretary Jojo Cadiz, because I was told this was the drop-off point near the President’s residence,” Co said.

Co alleged that cash deliveries totaling P1 billion in December 2024 were received by Cadiz. He claimed the money was later brought to a house along Narra Avenue allegedly owned by Marcos and the final destination of the money.

He also alleged that the Tamarind Road house was bought by Romualdez on his cousin Marcos’ instructions. Co said it was used as a temporary holding site for cash allegedly sourced from “SOPs, collections, and deliveries.”

“In total, I personally delivered P1 billion. I myself handed over the money, together with my driver and staff. All of this was done under the direct instruction of speaker Martin Romualdez,” he said.

Impeachment implications

Meanwhile, political scientist Dennis Coronacion said the Senate testimonies would have greater significance if corroborating evidence would establish the actual transfer of money to the residences linked to top officials.

In an interview on DAILY TRIBUNE’s Usapang OFW, Coronacion, chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Santo Tomas, said the appearance of surprise witnesses revived the allegations raised earlier by Co, particularly those involving the properties in Forbes Park.

“Well, I watched it. The two witnesses’ testimony points to the fact that it corroborates the claim that the house on Tamarind Road belongs to former speaker Martin Romualdez,” Coronacion said, speaking mostly in Filipino.

However, he noted that while the testimonies could support claims of ownership or control of the Tamarind Road property, they did not, by themselves, confirm that cash was delivered there.

“But what cannot be corroborated there, I think what is lacking, is that the money was brought there, the suitcases of money. That is the statement of congressman Zaldy Co that still needs corroboration,” he said.

Coronacion said corroboration could hinge on testimony by other alleged participants, including former Marine Sgt. Orly Guteza, who claimed he was present during the cash deliveries.

“This is where Guteza’s statement becomes important because he says he was among those who brought [cash] to that house. So if they can stitch all these pieces together, including corroborating statements, this might knock down [the President],” he said.

“If this narrative succeeds — that the money went to the former House speaker and then, through the House speaker, was received by PBBM,” Coronacion said that if something like that could be proven, it could significantly alter the political landscape.

Asked about the implications if evidence showed Tamarind Road functioned as a transshipment point and Narra Avenue as the final destination of alleged kickbacks, Coronacion said the consequences could be serious.

“Hypothetically speaking, that kind of narrative, if that’s backed up by evidence — solid evidence — then that’s going to put the President in danger,” he said.

He cautioned, however, that translating such findings into impeachment proceedings would still require strong, admissible evidence.

“I don’t know if that can be used as a basis for an impeachment complaint against the President, but it’s not very simple. There must be strong evidence and testimony,” Coronacion said.

Ownership questions

Corporate filings added another layer to the controversy.

Golden Pheasant Holdings Corporation declared in its 2023 audited financial statements that it acquired the house and lot at No. 30 Tamarind Road.

The DAILY TRIBUNE reached out to the camp of the former speaker and other individuals named in the report but did not receive a response, despite holding the story for two days.