A lawyer from the camp of former House Speaker Martin Romualdez expressed that the Office of the Ombudsman should dismiss its case against his client, arguing that the anti-graft body had a “non-case” because of its lack of credible evidence.

Atty. Ade Fajardo said that the testimonies from the alleged bodyguards of former congressman Zaldy Co were unreliable given the fact that the information–particularly when it came to the individuals they implicated–were often inconsistent.

“It’s a non-case, it should be dismissed because they have no other evidence aside from stories, and the story keeps changing, it keeps flipping, sometimes people get involved, sometimes people get removed depending on the wave of politics,” Fajardo said in a press briefing.

The lawyer noted the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) had also charged the individuals with cyber libel and perjury, claiming that it was perhaps due to the agencies finding the testimonies as libelous.

Aside from the NBI and the DOJ, recalled that even the Ombudsman had previously cast doubt on the veracity of their allegations, classifying the remarks as an attempt to “destabilize” the government.

“If we believe that, if the other agencies believe that is in fact untrustworthy, why are we then now believing them just because the respondent is a relative of the President,” he said.

Asked whether they believed that there would be any further developments in the case, Fajardo said that it was his belief that all the allegations have already been made since their information was already submitted for preliminary investigation.

“We can not predict, we can not guess who else will flip sides or who else will tell the truth,” the lawyer stated. “The only thing that is noteworthy here is that this investigation has been going on for several months.”

Grave abuse of discretion

With belief that the anti-graft body had no case, Fajardo stated that they were taking steps to address the perceived grave abuse of discretion from the Ombudsman in pursuing its case against Romualdez.

The former Speaker further stated that their view on the matter came from their unresolved motion that has asked the investigative agency to take a step back from the probe.

“We filed a motion to inhibit the Ombudsman from this investigation. We wanted a fair impartial investigation. And by requiring the former Speaker to actually file his counter-affidavit without acting on the motion for inhibition, I think that may be considered as a grave abuse of discretion,” he said.

To recall, Romualdez himself accused Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla of being pre-judiced in the case because of their proclamation that the lawmaker from Leyte was one of the “masterminds” of the scandal.