Marcos an even bigger fish to fry than Romualdez come ’28?

Public Works and Highways Secretary Vince Dizon on Thursday echoed Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla’s description of former House Speaker Martin Romualdez as the “big fish” in the flood control scandal, amid earlier allegations by expelled Ako Bicol Partylist Rep. Zaldy Co implicating President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the alleged kickback scheme.

Dizon maintained that the government’s pursuit of those involved in the flood control anomalies should not end with Romualdez, who is facing a P7.4-billion plunder case.

Remulla had described Romualdez as the “big fish” following the filing of the case on Monday.

“He is the big fish for now. This is not the end of the cases for him. There will be more, and we will be filing cases against more people,” the Ombudsman said.

Dizon’s remarks came as Co’s allegations continued to hang over the investigation.

The former congressman has claimed that he and his security personnel personally delivered flood control kickbacks to residences linked to both Romualdez and Marcos.

In one of his videos, Co said he and his men delivered cash to the homes of Marcos and Romualdez in Forbes Park, as well as to Malacañang.

Co also claimed that he personally delivered P1 billion in December 2024 to Justice Undersecretary Jose “Jojo” Cadiz Jr., whom he identified as an intermediary for Marcos.

Co said the money was delivered in two tranches — P200 million on 2 December and P800 million on 5 December — and that Cadiz was to bring the money to Marcos.

“Speaker Martin himself told me that he and President Marcos would split that money,” Co said in Filipino.

Both Marcos and Romualdez, who are first cousins, have denied Co’s allegations.

University of Santo Tomas political science department head, Prof. Dennis Coronacion, said that Romualdez being seen as primarily responsible for the scandal is that as the former speaker, “he had direct authority over the national budget process, legislative insertions and committee allocations.”

“Also, investigations from bodies like the Independent Commission for Infrastructure reportedly documented the existence of a network of public officials and individuals (alleging monthly quotas and corporate funneling schemes) that pointed to the House leadership,” he pointed out.

As for Marcos, Coronacion said, “theoretically, it’s possible for the Ombudsman to say that the evidence used against the former Speaker can be used also against the President once he turns into a private citizen after the election of his successor in 2028.”

“This is possible since the illegal acts allegedly committed by the former Speaker would require the cooperation of other high-ranking public officials,” he added.

Even before Romualdez’s arrest, lawyers and other personalities had called for an investigation into the President’s alleged role in the flood control scandal.

Lawyer Andre de Jesus, in an impeachment complaint filed earlier this year, described Marcos as the “central figure in a corruption scheme,” alleging that the scale of the questionable flood control projects would not have been possible without presidential approval.

National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers president Ephraim Cortez had said that Co should formally testify so investigators could examine the alleged involvement of “other high-ranking officials,” including Marcos.

Retired Philippine Air Force Gen. Romeo Poquiz, meanwhile, said Marcos should bear “command responsibility” because he approved the 2025 national budget containing the anomalous allocations.

The issue could take on greater legal significance after Marcos leaves office in mid-2028.

Presidential immunity protects an incumbent President from suit but does not shield him from criminal prosecution after he leaves office. Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Estrada v Desierto, establishes that his immunity is tied to his incumbency.

When Marcos’ term ends in June 2028, presidential immunity would no longer shield him from criminal proceedings, although prosecutors would still need sufficient evidence to establish probable cause and ultimately prove any case in court.