Jasha Gamao

PASAY CITY—The Senate impeachment court shifted its full focus to the alleged misuse of confidential funds on July 29, diving directly into Article I of the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte. 

Prosecutors launched their offensive by targeting the systemic misappropriation, questionable liquidation, and outright misuse of secret government funds under the Vice President's watch. 

The day's proceedings marked a critical turning point as the trial exposed the physical movement of millions in public money.

Two key banking insiders took the witness stand to detail a pattern of massive cash withdrawals. Violeta Constantino, the former manager of LandBank’s Shaw Boulevard branch, testified first, confirming the routine encashment of multiple high-value checks. 

According to Constantino, these checks were explicitly made payable to Gina Acosta, the special disbursing officer for the Office of the Vice President (OVP).

Maintaining the prosecution's momentum, the House panel immediately called Nenita Camposano to the stand. 

The retired manager of the LandBank Department of Education branch backed up the previous testimony, detailing a similar pattern of heavy check encashments. 

Camposano testified that these substantial funds were routed through Edward Fajarda, further tying the massive cash withdrawals directly to Duterte's inner circle and setting the stage for a fierce legal battle in the days ahead.

‍

‍

QUEZON CITY—Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Chairman Senator Erwin Tulfo clarified that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s announcement regarding the imminent filing of cases against former House Speaker Ferdinand "Martin" Romualdez over the multi-billion peso flood control scandal does not signal the end of the upper chamber's investigation. 

Speaking on the sidelines of the President's fifth State of the Nation Address (SONA), Tulfo emphasized that the legislative probe remains active, particularly if new anomalies and personalities come to light.

The panel chairman made it clear that executive legal action will not automatically stall Senate proceedings, pointing to other unexamined regularities in local projects.

“No. It doesn’t. Kung meron pong mga kagaya nung binabanggit ni Senator Lacson na sa Taguig na hindi naman po na-mention nung unang hearing, then why not?” Tulfo stated, signaling a readiness to expand the scope of the probe to unvetted local projects.

However, Tulfo noted that the committee needs to coordinate with other lawmakers to finalize their next legislative steps, particularly regarding evidence handling. 

He expressed a preference for tackling new leads within the Senate halls rather than letting them bypass the committee entirely. 

“Pero kailangan kong kausapin si Senator Lacson na ano ho ba talaga? Kasi may statement siya sa media na dadalhin niya nalang sa Ombudsman. Alangan ba naman kukunin ko sa Ombudsman yung kaso pero kung dito sa amin ididinig edi ididinig namin,” he explained.

The lawmaker drew a sharp line between revisiting resolved findings and uncovering fresh corruption angles, noting that the committee will focus its energy where it is needed most. 

He asserted that duplication of efforts is unnecessary if the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman is already handling the primary targets. 

“Ngayong kung sila Romualdez at kung sino-sino pa dyan na mga Congressman, si Zaldy Co, mga contractor nandoon na po eh, nakasuhan na po…bakit pa namin iimbestigahan ulit? Iimbestigahan namin kapag may mga bagong personalities na naman, bagong mga Senador, bagong mga congressman, then we will investigate,” Tulfo added.

Despite the remaining questions surrounding the flood control controversy, the veteran broadcaster turned lawmaker expressed overall satisfaction with the President’s annual address. 

Tulfo lauded the Chief Executive for addressing the public's demand for accountability and delivering on anti-corruption rhetoric with concrete legal actions. 

“It’s okay with me kasi yung hiniintay ng mga tao na tungkol sa “mahiya naman kayo sa flood control” may resulta diba?” Tulfo concluded.

‍

PASAY CITY—National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag firmly denied being coached by the prosecution prior to taking the witness stand in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. 

Standing before the court on July 21,  for the fourth article of impeachment, Matibag faced sharp questioning from defense counsel Atty. Mark Vinluan, who pressed the NBI chief on why he appeared to testify despite the absence of a formal subpoena summoning him to the court.

Matibag acknowledged that he met with lead House prosecutor Gerville Luistro twice before the proceedings, but maintained that the meetings were strictly professional overviews rather than a rehearsal. 

He clarified that the encounters only involved a discussion on the specific matters to be covered by his testimony. 

Pushing back against the defense's implications of bias, Matibag fired back at Vinluan, stating, "In the same way that when you want to present me as your witness, I will be more than willing to sit down with the defense counsel."

Beyond defending the integrity of his testimony, the NBI chief also flatly rejected allegations surrounding the political nature of his designation. 

Matibag denied claims that he was appointed to lead the NBI specifically to allow President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to participate in or influence the high-profile probe.

‍

PASAY CITY—The Senate impeachment trial heated up on July 20 proceedings, as Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano questioned whether an impeachable offense must fall strictly within a respondent's current term, invoking the landmark Duterte v. House of Representatives case. 

House impeachment prosecutor Chel Diokno countered that offenses extend beyond the active term, dismissing relevant sections of that precedent as non-binding obiter dictum—an opinion uttered in passing. 

Defense counsel Michael Poa swiftly shot back, arguing those portions are binding law and pointing to the Supreme Court decision that triggered the one-year bar on Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment.

As Diokno asserted that the articles of impeachment are properly loaded with both ultimate and evidentiary facts, Cayetano pushed back on consistency, questioning why the Saballa and Cabrera impeachment complaints lacked authentic records when filed. 

The procedural grilling prompted Diokno to openly question the Senate's role, asking if the impeachment court was wrongfully acting "as an appellate or review court on what happened in the HOR [House of Representatives] proceedings."

The debate pivoted to political fairness when Cayetano recalled a past impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to highlight a double standard regarding transparency. 

"Ang katotohanan ay hindi confidential. So why in the case of President Marcos is the katotohanan confidential, but in the case of Vice President Sara it is not confidential?" Cayetano asked, later adding, "Would it be unfair to require 20 years of documents from AMLC, BIR, and bank accounts from Vice President Sara without requiring the same from President Bongbong considering that all of the scandals is happening during his administration?"

Diokno defended the distinction by stating the Marcos complaint simply failed to allege ultimate facts, noting that "if the complaint against Marcos had ultimate facts, he does not see any reason why it can't proceed."

Tensions peaked when Poa revealed the defense is actively contesting the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s (AMLC) "unlawful disclosure" of Duterte's records during House hearings, prompting Cayetano to accuse the prosecution of an information-gathering dragnet. 

"If you cannot connect AMLC and the bank accounts, that is precisely what the defense and other people are saying. Aren't you fishing between the three? Fishing means hindi mo pa hawak so you're trying to get a fish," Cayetano said. 

Diokno firmly rejected the characterization, telling Cayetano, "If we bring your honor’s logic to it’s conclusion, that would mean the Committee on Justice would have to conduct a full blown trial... when that is not the contemplation of the procedure for impeachment under the Constitution.” 

Poa, later insisted a fishing expedition was evident because prosecutors could not pinpoint exactly when or through what transaction the Vice President supposedly amassed unexplained wealth.

‍

MANILA—Seven days ahead of President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.’s State of the Nation Address (SONA), the Office of the Ombudsman announced a major milestone in its investigation into the controversial multi-billion peso flood control scandal. 

In a public announcement delivered by Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano on July 20, 2026, the anti-graft agency declared it is ready to file two separate complaints for preliminary investigation against former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, former lawmaker Elizaldy Co, and several others. 

The pending complaints focus directly on charges of Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, targeting what the agency calls a systemic diversion of public funds intended to shield Filipino communities from devastating floods.

The Ombudsman firmly identified Romualdez as the central figure of the illicit scheme, which investigators allege channeled massive infrastructure funds into predetermined payouts and kickbacks instead of functional flood control projects. 

According to Clavano, the core of the agency’s case relies heavily on the sworn, firsthand testimonies of eight individuals who previously served as Co’s personal security personnel. 

These witnesses provided detailed accounts of direct money deliveries from Co to Romualdez. 

The Ombudsman emphasized that this testimony is directly corroborated by an independent financial paper trail encompassing bank transfers, money service businesses, and shell companies explicitly tied to the former Speaker.

While the announcement marks a critical escalation just a week before the President's scheduled SONA, the Ombudsman clarified that the preliminary investigation does not yet constitute a formal court charge or a conviction. 

The agency maintains that all respondents retain the presumption of innocence and will be given a formal opportunity to submit their defenses and counter-affidavits. 

Once these responses are gathered, a panel of state prosecutors will officially resolve whether the evidence warrants elevating the high-profile plunder and money laundering cases to the Sandiganbayan.

‍