The news that former Speaker Martin Romualdez is off the hook regarding the flood control project controversy certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Not because he is guilty — as this remains evidentiary and therefore can only be determined once pieces of evidence are formally introduced and vetted — but because there seems to be a conscious effort to absolve him of any liability.
According to Congressman Jude Acidre, the ICI report finds no direct involvement or liability on the part of Romualdez, even describing allegations against him as mere diversionary tactics. Moreover, while the Blue Ribbon Committee does not necessarily let him off, Sen. Panfilo Lacson clarified on numerous occasions that testimonies gathered so far lack sufficient proof to meet the Department of Justice’s threshold for conviction.
Why that is the case is not really because there is a dearth of evidence against him. In fact, there are people who are not only willing to testify but also determined to present documentary and other object evidence to establish their culpability. The only problem is that his allies have already declared them incompetent even before they could be presented.
In fact, when Orly Guteza testified in the Senate, the notarization of his affidavit became the focal point of the investigation, while not much has been said about his testimony, which supposedly implicates both the former Speaker and Zaldy Co. Right now, nobody knows where the former Marine is, virtually rendering his testimony inadmissible, if not entirely useless.
The pattern here, it seems, is that while on paper everyone involved should be prosecuted, those who, one way or another, are associated with the administration are somehow shielded from any allegations that ordinarily should cause the Senate, the Ombudsman and the DoJ to act with dispatch, considering that public office is a public trust.
Just look at the case of the 18 ex-Marines who filed a joint affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman. Instead of treating their affidavit as a formally verified complaint, Ombudsman Jesus Remulla considered it as a mere “transmittal of an affidavit,” subjecting it to standard evaluation, including checking the credibility of the signatories and verifying their identities. The purpose, supposedly, is to help the affiants ensure that their complaint is solid and that the evidence they presented is enough to convict respondents with reasonable certainty.
But instead of helping them, the NBI, even before it could finish its investigation, has already attacked their credibility as witnesses. In fact, Remulla has been expressing skepticism, referring to the allegations as a “canard,” or a false or baseless story, noting that six of the 18 individuals are facing murder charges.
In contrast, his office has welcomed Ramil Madriaga’s affidavit, reportedly accepting his allegations hook, line and sinker. Oh well…