Screengrab of Jeck Batallones’ virtual interview with Atty. Ade Fajardo, spokesperson and counsel of former Speaker Martin Romualdez (1st District, Leyte), commenting on the claims of the so-called ‘Maleta Boys’ aired on July 17, 2026. (Courtesy: PRTV Manila)
The camp of former Speaker Martin Romualdez again questioned the credibility of the so-called “Maleta Boys” after the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed separate cases against some of them, saying the move reinforced its position that their allegations against the Leyte lawmaker were unreliable.
Atty. Ade Fajardo, Romualdez’s spokesperson and counsel, said the credibility of the 18 witnesses had been questioned since they surfaced in February, noting that even the Office of the Ombudsman had previously described their statements as calculated to destabilize the government.
“We have long been saying that the statements of the Maleta Boys were not credible or believable, ever since they surfaced in February,” Fajardo said in a DZMM interview.
Fajardo said the filing of perjury complaints by several individuals named in the witnesses’ statements further weakened their allegations.
“In simple terms, you lied in a sworn statement,” he said of the Maleta Boys, also described as ex-soldiers who served as employees and bodyguards for fugitive lawmaker Zaldy Co.
Fajardo said Romualdez was prepared to face the allegations through the proper legal process and had no intention of leaving the country.
“Congressman Romualdez said after the SONA (State of the Nation Address) that he is ready to face all these allegations, but through the proper process,” Fajardo said.
He denied reports that Romualdez had attempted to leave the country, saying his camp had even informed immigration authorities that there had been no such attempt.
Fajardo said the proper venue for any claim that Romualdez had tried to leave was the Sandiganbayan, where prosecutors had sought a preliminary hold departure order.
“We are ready to answer that,” he said.
Fajardo added that Romualdez’s camp was preparing for the preliminary investigation after the Ombudsman reportedly issued a subpoena in connection with the allegations.
On reports of frozen assets in connection with a possible plunder case, Fajardo said proceedings involving the Anti-Money Laundering Council remained confidential.
He acknowledged that authorities had sought freeze orders and said Romualdez’s camp was responding through the proper legal process.
Fajardo also questioned reports that some of the “Maleta Boys” could be considered state witnesses, saying it would be difficult to reconcile such a move with the DOJ’s actions against them.
“We have long been saying that it seems the most guilty are being made state witnesses,” he said.
Fajardo said that after a year of allegations, authorities had yet to produce evidence that could bridge the gap between accusations and proof.
“What we have are insinuations and hints. There is really nothing that can serve as a bridge from allegation to evidence,” he said.
He pointed to the reported possibility that the “Maleta Boys” could be used as state witnesses despite the DOJ’s filing of perjury and libel cases against them.
Fajardo said the situation raised questions about the differing treatment of the witnesses by government agencies.
“One branch of government is saying these testimonies are worthless or lies, while another branch, the Office of the Ombudsman, appears to be giving weight to them,” he said.
He said the flood control allegations against Romualdez appeared to rest primarily on the witnesses’ accounts.
“These allegations about flood control rest only on their statements. In other words, it is all stories from the Maleta Boys, with no other evidence,” Fajardo said.
On reports that former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonoan could become a state witness, Fajardo said he was not aware of any formal statement submitted by the former secretary to the Ombudsman as of late last week.
He said there had reportedly been negotiations but noted that Bonoan would have to carefully consider the consequences of becoming a witness because of his central role in the budget and project implementation process.
“No money would be released by the DPWH, and no project could be approved or awarded to a winning contractor without the approval of the DPWH. All of that centers on former Secretary Bonoan,” Fajardo said.
He said the rules on state witnesses require that the person seeking such status should not appear to be the most guilty party.
“That is the rule. It still needs to be approved by the court,” he said.
Fajardo said Romualdez’s camp would confront any testimony from Bonoan if the former secretary eventually agreed to become a state witness.
ICI found no liability on ex-Speaker
Fajardo also cited the findings of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), saying it found no liability on Romualdez in its investigation.
He said the commission found no direct involvement by Romualdez in the key stages of the budget process, including the bicameral conference committee, small committee and technical working group.
“Precisely, Congressman Romualdez was not in the bicameral conference, was not in the small committee and was not in the technical working group,” Fajardo said.
He noted that the technical working group included the heads of the House appropriations committee and the Senate finance committee.
Fajardo said Romualdez’s final participation was limited to signing the final version of the General Appropriations Act, alongside other officials involved in its enactment.
“If that is the only evidence linking him to this scandal, then everyone who signed it should also be included as respondents,” he said.
Asked whether Romualdez could still face liability for negligence because questionable budget items passed through the bicameral and small committee processes, Fajardo rejected the argument.
He said the Ombudsman had initially indicated that the possible liability appeared to be negligence, but argued that lawmakers rely on the recommendations and programs submitted by implementing agencies such as the DPWH.
“The job of a congressman is not to go to the project site. They are not on site. They rely on the recommendations of the executive department,” he said.
Fajardo said applying a negligence theory to Romualdez would mean holding all lawmakers and senators who approved or reconciled the General Appropriations Act similarly liable.
He also said the House speaker’s role in the passage of the budget was largely ceremonial and non-voting.
“It would be difficult to tie him to negligence precisely because a legislator is far removed from the proposal and implementation of projects,” he said.
Performing duties as Leyte representative
Fajardo said Romualdez continued to perform his duties as Leyte representative and attend to his constituents.
Despite the controversy, Fajardo said Romualdez continued working for his constituents in Leyte, including assisting families affected by a recent school shooting incident in the province.
“He has not stopped. In fact, we have recently been busy in Leyte because of the school shooting incident, assisting the families and helping ensure that justice is served,” he said.
He also described Romualdez’s relationship with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as stable, noting that they are relatives.
Fajardo said Romualdez’s main appeal was for authorities to observe equal treatment and due process.
He cited the dismissal of allegations involving several other individuals initially named by the “Maleta Boys,” saying Romualdez appeared to be the only major figure left facing allegations based on their statements.
“It is as if he has been locked in and targeted, with everyone else cleared and only Congressman Romualdez left in the allegations of the Maleta Boys,” Fajardo said.
He maintained that none of the “Maleta Boys” had been connected to Romualdez and that they had identified themselves in their joint affidavit as employees or associates of former lawmaker Zaldy Co.
“They are not connected with the former speaker. Not one of them is connected with him,” Fajardo said. He added that the witnesses had acknowledged in their joint affidavit that Romualdez did not pay or provide money to them.