THE Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) recently recommended the prosecution of former House Speaker Martin Romualdez along with former Ako Bicol Rep. Zaldy Co for plunder, graft and direct bribery in connection with flood control projects worth billions of pesos.
Also to be charged are members of the board of two public works contractors linked to Co involved in flood control projects from 2016 to 2025.
Romualdez is a lawyer and Constitutionalist. His recent public statements—both on the flood-control controversy and earlier the alleged P100-billion budget insertions—indicate he and his team are likely to anchor his defense on several themes.
One, he has no role in DPWH procurement and there is no evidence of direct participation.
He has repeatedly stressed that lawmakers do not handle procurement, bidding, or project implementation, and therefore cannot be liable for corruption in how DPWH awarded or executed projects.
Two, he has no direct link to Sunwest or Hi-Tone; guilt by association is not evidence.
He can argue that the presence of Zaldy Co’s alleged associate-companies in the DPWH list does not constitute proof that he himself benefited or intervened. Sunwest and Hi-Tone may be linked to Zaldy Co, but not to him.
Three, Romualdez can argue that accusations are politically motivated since his being the President’s cousin makes him a convenient target for controversies.
The charges rely on inferences of influence, not evidence.
Four, on the issue of alleged P100-billion budget insertions, Romualdez can say any recommendation or endorsement by congressional leaders is within normal legislative function.
Budget realignments, amendments, and district allocations are all performed within the legal framework of Congress.
Five, on the plunder charge. The prosecution must show that Romualdez personally benefited by at least ₱50 million.
He has categorically denied receiving any money. His defense will stress: No unexplained wealth has been proven. No bank records, SALN inconsistencies, or lifestyle indicators link him to illicit gains.
Without demonstrating enrichment, the plunder charge collapses.
Six, he can assert that since the projects span multiple administrations, he was not the Speaker or in a decisive political position for much of that period.
Flood control budgets have long been shaped by DPWH regional offices and congressmen from flood-prone areas, and not by the Speaker alone.
Any supposed scheme would require long-term coordination across administrations, which is implausible without stronger evidence.
In the end, Romualdez is likely to invoke in his defense these arguments: the institutional separation of powers; the absence of hard evidence of personal enrichment; political overtones in the filing of charges against him; and denial of direct links to the implicated contractors.
