WHAT was billed as a serious inquiry by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee gradually revealed itself as a fishing expedition that ran aground, its allegations collapsing under contradiction, sworn denials, and the absence of proof.
At the center of the hearings were two witnesses, identified as “Joy” and “Marie” later established to be staff of a former tenant of a South Forbes Park residence.
They claimed that a businessman allegedly visited the property, introduced himself as a contractor, and name-dropped former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez as the supposed buyer.
The narrative did not survive scrutiny.
During the same hearing, contractor Pacifico “Curlee” Discaya testified under oath that he had never entered South Forbes Park and did not even know what the houses there looked like.
The denial was categorical. One cannot approach occupants, introduce oneself, or issue instructions in a place one has never been to.
The contradiction alone punctured the story.
Evidence, Not Noise. No Papers, No Proof.
Beyond conflicting testimonies, a more basic problem surfaced: the absence of documentary evidence.
Not a single deed of sale, contract, receipt, or payment record bearing Romualdez’s name was presented before the committee.
Even Senate Blue Ribbon Committee chairman Senator Ping Lacson acknowledged this on the record, saying the information presented was “not enough to implicate” the former Speaker and could only be treated as a lead—one effectively neutralized by Discaya’s sworn denial.
In law, hearsay carries no weight. Ownership and liability are established by documents, not by second-hand accounts from household staff.
A Lease dispute, inflated
Stripped of rhetoric, the inquiry traced back to a private dispute involving a lease that was not renewed.
Records cited during the proceedings were consistent and clear: Romualdez was not the tenant, not the owner, not the buyer, and not a beneficiary of the property.
His name appears in no deed, no contract, and no payment record.
This reality prompted House Committee on Human Rights chairman Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. to cite Lacson’s own statement as confirmation that the process yielded no evidence linking Romualdez to any wrongdoing.
“Evidence, not noise, should always lead,” Abante said, noting that Lacson is not a political ally of Romualdez but a senator known for scrutinizing corruption.
After hearings, testimonies, and a review of records, Abante said, nothing materialized. “The facts spoke,” he added.
Smoke Without Fire
Romualdez’s lawyer and spokesperson Ade Fajardo, echoed the point, saying the allegations collapsed under sworn testimony and the absence of documents.
Assertions aired in public hearings, he stressed, must be tested against facts and records, not amplified through conjecture.
Oversight is vital in a democracy.
But it must be anchored on evidence. When speculation replaces proof, hearings risk becoming trials by publicity rather than instruments of accountability.
Measured against sworn testimony, official records, and the committee chair’s own assessment, the allegations against Romualdez do not stand.
What remains is a cautionary reminder: In matters of public accountability, smoke without fire does not make a case.
