In the murky waters of political corruption, few things are as dangerous as a witness willing to name names. Yet, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee’s investigation into anomalous flood control projects has been left hanging by the mysterious disappearance of key witness Orly Gutesa, a security aide whose explosive sworn affidavit remains a critical, yet unverified, piece of the puzzle.

Senator Panfilo Lacson, the committee chairman, is now leading a relentless search for Gutesa, whose sudden “blackout” has raised serious concerns about his safety and the motivations behind his testimony. The search has uncovered a shocking revelation from Senate security footage, suggesting Gutesa’s appearance was part of a highly coordinated political maneuver orchestrated by the senator who presented him, Rodante Marcoleta.

Orly Gutesa was brought to the Senate by Senator Marcoleta and delivered a sworn affidavit detailing sensational allegations against powerful politicians, including that he personally delivered cash kickbacks from flood control projects to the homes of various figures.

However, Gutesa subsequently vanished. Senator Lacson confirmed that Gutesa is no longer found at his registered address, forcing the committee chairman to seek assistance from the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC), former Congressman Mike Defensor, and even considering enlisting former Marine officers for help in locating him. Subpoenas for Gutesa will now be routed through Senator Marcoleta’s office, as he was the one who initially presented the witness.

The disappearance is deeply alarming, especially given the gravity of his statements. Gutesa had initially sought protection under the Witness Protection Program (WPP) but later declined, reportedly claiming he had a licensed firearm and companions for protection, or that Marcoleta offered a Senate-based program.

The sudden failure to appear for a scheduled meeting at the Department of Justice (DOJ) fueled fears—echoing Senator Bato Dela Rosa’s prior warnings—that Gutesa needed bulletproof protection and escorts. The speaker emphasized that Gutesa’s testimony, regardless of its veracity, was inflammatory and dangerous, risking the anger of those he implicated or those he defamed, making his disappearance appear ominous.

The search for Gutesa led Senator Lacson to scrutinize the Senate’s own security footage, and what the CCTV cameras captured revealed a coordinated effort that sheds new light on the genesis of Gutesa’s appearance.

The footage from the day Gutesa testified shows him arriving as early as 8:27 AM, long before the hearing commenced. He was met and proceeded directly to Senator Marcoleta’s office, where he remained for approximately 30 minutes. He was then accompanied by Marcoleta’s staff to the gallery and called to testify around 10:27 AM.

Senator Lacson highlighted the significance of this sequence, noting that Marcoleta presented Gutesa to the committee without any prior notice, surprising everyone, including the chairman. This pre-arranged, private meeting inside a senator’s office immediately before delivering explosive testimony strongly suggests a close, coordinated connection between Gutesa and Senator Marcoleta.

This revelation fuels the speculation that Gutesa did not testify purely out of his own free will, but was rather “udjok” (instigated or prodded) by someone else. The entire event is framed as a political ambush designed to shock the committee and drive a specific narrative into the public record.

Despite Gutesa’s vanishing act, Senator Lacson confirmed a critical legal point: Gutesa’s sworn affidavit remains valid “on its face value” and will be part of the official record. Gutesa not only swore to the affidavit but also attested to its contents before the Blue Ribbon Committee, lending it immediate weight regardless of notarization.

However, the validity of the affidavit is contingent on corroboration. Lacson is actively pursuing measures to confirm Gutesa’s claims of delivering items to a specific location, mentioning a house construction at 42 Monkenly Road. The plan is to subpoena the contractor or security agency handling the location to obtain logbooks detailing deliveries between December 2024 and August 2025.

If the logbooks confirm that Gutesa delivered items to that address, his testimony gains significant credibility. Conversely, if the security records show no evidence of his presence, his credibility would be undermined, complicating the entire investigation.

Further bolstering the investigation, Senator Lacson questioned the circumstances surrounding Gutesa’s arrival and departure. The CCTV footage showed Gutesa arriving with an escort. Lacson stressed the importance of identifying this person, the vehicle used, its plate number, and the identities of those who accompanied Gutesa home after the hearing. This entire chain of inquiry aims to expose the political handler who facilitated Gutesa’s testimony and subsequent disappearance.

The entire affair has exposed a significant rift between the two senators involved, with Senator Lacson and Senator Marcoleta reportedly not on speaking terms due to their heated debates during the hearings. This highly personalized conflict within the committee adds a layer of political intrigue to the ongoing probe into the flood control anomalies.

Orly Gutesa’s whereabouts remain unknown, and his disappearance continues to haunt the investigation. The controversy shifts the public focus from the alleged corruption itself to the credibility and political motivations of those revealing it.

The central, troubling question remains: Did Gutesa simply choose to abandon the Witness Protection Program, or was he silenced? The CCTV footage provides a damning piece of evidence suggesting that, whatever Gutesa’s ultimate fate, his testimony was a calculated element in a broader political strategy—a strategy that has now backfired, leaving the alleged corruption uncovered, the witness missing, and the committee chairman left to pick up the pieces.