November 14, 2025 l The Manila Times
Resigned controversial lawmaker Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co’s legal situation presents a challenge to the principles of public accountability and transparency in fiscal governance.
The unfolding drama is less about an individual’s wealth and more about the integrity of the national budget process itself.
In a press conference last week, Co’s legal counsel, Ruy Rondain, presented a defense focusing on two elements: financial standing and personal safety. Rondain asserted that his client had a substantial net worth of P4.1 billion in 2019 before getting elected to Congress, a strategy to deflect alleged illegal activities while Co was in office.
Rondain claimed that his client remains abroad due to a “credible and serious threat” to his life, asserting that Co is “deathly afraid” to return and will only do so when his safety can be guaranteed.
The lawyer also took aim at the public flagging of three aircraft by Public Works Secretary Vince Dizon, clarifying that the air assets were owned by Misibis Aviation, a company that Co incorporated in 2004.
Since this predates Co’s election to Congress by 15 years, Rondain questioned how the assets could be deemed illegally acquired.
Moreover, Rondain sought to correct the “twisted and misleading” public narrative by dismissing corruption allegations against Co as unspecific. He raised the possibility of a remote appearance for Co when the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee resumes its probe. This is a reasonable compromise, showing a willingness to cooperate while ensuring the subject’s safety.
But the defensive posture must be weighed against meticulous details surfacing from the investigation on Co. The allegations reinforced by the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) and the testimony of former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineers center on a mechanism in which projects were allegedly inserted into the national budget and led to the pocketing of tons of money.
The system involved Co’s position as then-chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which gave him authority over the allocation of public funds.
Testimonies from DPWH officials claimed that 20 to 25 percent of project values were demanded and collected by Co. The investigation is particularly focused on the huge expansion of so-called unprogrammed allocations in the national budget, which allegedly served as a crucial channel for the insertions.
This is not simply a matter of alleged wrongdoing, but an examination of how the nation’s primary economic policy document was potentially co-opted for private gain.
Co’s case at the Ombudsman is equally telling. The office has initiated a preliminary investigation and ordered him to file a counter-affidavit. However, he is considered to be in default after his representatives refused to receive the order, effectively waiving his right to present his defense during this crucial phase.
The Ombudsman, aiming to file the first batch of cases against a number of suspects led by Co by the end of November, will now resolve the charges based solely on the evidence submitted by the complainants, which includes the ICI’s recommendations for plunder charges.
Legal circles and the public are now pondering a key issue: could Co become a state witness? This possibility hinges on whether he can meet the legal standard under Republic Act 6981, which requires that the applicant “does not appear to be the most guilty” and that the testimony is “absolutely necessary.”
Given the multiple testimonies placing him as the one who allegedly facilitated the budget insertions and received the largest percentage of commissions, Co appears to be a primary subject of the prosecution. Yet this legal assessment shifts if his testimony can implicate other high-ranking officials who held greater authority.
The ICI’s investigation has already touched upon Co’s closest ally, resigned House speaker Martin Romualdez and Sen. Francis Escudero.
If Co provides irrefutable evidence that the entire operation was mandated or enabled by more senior leaders, the Department of Justice may determine that pursuing the higher political authority would be in the greater public interest. In such a scenario, the value of securing a conviction against the higher-ranking individual outweighs Co’s own role, potentially allowing him to legally shed the designation of “most guilty” and secure immunity.
The prospective Zoom hearing will be critical, as it requires Co to confront the allegations and, in doing so, may signal whether he intends to defend his actions or use his testimony to reveal the scope of the plunder of the country’s infrastructure budget. (The Zoom meeting with Co will no longer push through, Senate President Pro Tempore and Blue-Ribbon Committee chairman Panfilo Lacson said on Thursday. — Ed.)
***The views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of his office as well as FINEX. For comments, email nextgenmedia@gmail.com. Photo is from Pinterest.