“Ex-Rep. Elizaldy Co’s allegations amount to hearsay”
HOUSE Majority Leader Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos has done the right thing in declaring his willingness to submit to an investigation by the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) after he was tagged by former Ako Bicol Partylist representative Elizaldy Co as among those who made project insertions in previous budgets.
Co had publicly accused the young Marcos of having ordered massive “budget insertions,” that is, adding projects/allocations into the national budgets under his name totaling over ₱50 billion across the 2023–2025 budgets.
He claimed the insertions amounted to: ₱9.636 billion in 2023, ₱20.174 billion in 2024, and ₱21.127 billion in 2025.
The resigned congressman who has already fled the country to parts unknown also alleged that contractors paid in advance in exchange for securing government contracts under those insertions.
In his letter to ICI Chairman Andres Reyes, Marcos said he accorded “full respect” to the work of the ICI and its efforts to uncover the truth behind the ongoing investigation of flood control projects.
“Let me state this clearly and without hesitation: I am willing to appear before the Commission at any time. I welcome the opportunity to shed light on any matter that may assist your review. I stand ready to cooperate, answer questions, and provide any clarification needed to move this investigation forward,” Marcos said.
In a subsequent post accompanying the letter, Marcos reiterated that he was submitting himself to the ICI investigation given that he has nothing to hide.
Marcos has denied the allegations.
He described them “as fantastical as they are false.”
He also described Co a “criminal … evading justice,” not a “journalist or truth crusader,” accusing him of using the allegations to destabilize the government and escape his own legal problems.
Marcos argued that Co’s statements are not genuine revelations but politically-motivated attempts to bring down his father’s administration.
The accusations against Sandro Marcos by Zaldy Co are very recent. Co first implicated him publicly on Nov. 25, 2025. Thus, this is still a developing story, not a settled or adjudicated case.
Co’s allegations build on his earlier claims against the President and other lawmakers, widening the scope of the corruption scandal tied to alleged flood-control and infrastructure-project abuses.
But Sandro’s immediate and strong denial, plus his willingness to cooperate with the ICI, shows he is being transparent and really wants to face the ICI investigation so he can clear his name.
The involvement of ICI and possibly other oversight bodies marks the beginning of formal scrutiny.
What will matter is whether Co’s allegations can be backed with documentary or testimonial evidence, such as budget records, contracts, and audit trails, not just public accusations.
Co’s claim—that the President ordered massive insertions—does not align with how the budget process is supposed to work.
Budget proposals come from the executive branch; by the time of the bicameral conference, revisions and insertions involve both the House and Senate.
The scenario described by Co—the president personally ordering insertions via congressmen—is therefore quite illogical.
Because of this disconnect, many experts and commentators say Co’s allegations, while serious, are for now more political narrative than concrete proof.
As one put it: the now-six-part video “can only have a political impact for now—not a legal one.”
Then there are doubts about timeline, documentation, and lack of corroborating names and evidence.
What should be pointed out is that in Co’s list of allegedly inserted projects, the public documents do not specify which lawmaker actually sponsored them.
This is a key detail required to ascribe responsibility.
It should also be emphasized that Co’s narrative contains inconsistencies and misleading statements, as well as questionable timing, for instance, the alleged delivery of briefcases even before the bicameral process started.
Co’s allegations amount to hearsay.
The former chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations has not offered any independent, verified documentary evidence that support his wild claims.
He should be compelled to return to the country from his hiding place abroad so he can be made accountable for baseless allegations made online that tarnish individual reputations and taint the image of Congress as a whole. (Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)
