SC orders Ombudsman, ICI to comment on Zaldy Co’s petition vs graft indictment

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has directed Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla to respond to a petition filed by former Ako Bicol Party-list representative Elizaldy Co, questioning the legality of his indictment before the Sandiganbayan.

In its en banc session on 11 February, the high court acted on Co’s petition for certiorari. 

The court ordered Remulla and the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) to submit their comments within 10 days from notice on the petition, including Co’s request for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO).

The SC ordered the respondents to submit their comments within 10 days from notice, including Co’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO). 

No TRO has been issued.

The assailed resolution, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, found probable cause to charge Co and several officials and private individuals with violations of Republic Act (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents. 

The Ombudsman ordered that the corresponding information be filed before the Sandiganbayan.

Specifically, the resolution cited one count of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, one count of malversation through falsification under the Revised Penal Code, and a separate violation of Section 3(h) of RA 3019 against Co. Charges against two other respondents were dismissed for lack of probable cause.

In his petition, Co asked the SC to annul the resolution and prohibit the Ombudsman from pursuing prosecution against him.

He alleged that the Ombudsman committed “grave abuse of discretion,” claiming the resolution was issued in an arbitrary and partial manner and that investigators disregarded an interim report by the infrastructure body that did not recommend his indictment.

Co also claimed he was denied due process during the preliminary investigation, saying he was not allowed to participate and was unable to obtain copies of the case records despite several written requests.

According to Co’s petition, the Ombudsman’s office replied that the records had already been forwarded to the Sandiganbayan and could no longer be furnished to him. 

Co maintained that the Ombudsman still had jurisdiction over the records and that the lack of access made filing a motion for reconsideration impractical.

He argued that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed directly with the Supreme Court was his only remedy to challenge the finding of probable cause.

Court records show Co received the resolution on  27 November 2025 and filed the petition within a 60-day period allowed under the rules.

Copies of the pleadings are available through the Supreme Court’s Current Cases section.