A firestorm of speculation has erupted across the political landscape, centered on a recent statement by President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM) regarding his own cousin, former House Speaker Martin Romualdez. What should have been a standard announcement on government proceedings has been twisted by some, particularly those allied with previous administrations, into a narrative of political “betrayal” and “dropping” a powerful ally. However, a deeper, more careful examination of the President’s words reveals a profound commitment to legal fairness and due process—a principle that should stand above political alliances or family ties.

The controversy stems from President Marcos’s update to the public about the continuing investigation into irregularities concerning certain flood control projects. He clearly stated that the acquired information and findings by the Internal Audit Committee (IAC) and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) would be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for thorough and independent investigation. Among the details being passed on are allegations concerning former Speaker Martin Romualdez and a person named Zaldy Co.

Critics and political rivals were quick to seize on the mention of Romualdez’s name, framing it as the President deliberately sacrificing his kin to save his own standing. They propagated the idea that PBBM was giving up his cousin, effectively pronouncing him “guilty” by mere association. This interpretation, however, is not only flawed but dangerously ignores the fundamental rule of law and the explicit context of the President’s communication.

President Marcos was unambiguous: the referral to the Ombudsman is simply the next step in a formal, legal process. He emphasized that the Ombudsman’s duty is to follow the evidence—a principle he fully supports. “The Ombudsman is only following the evidence. And wherever the evidence takes us, that is where we will go, and that is where our investigation will go,” the President affirmed. This statement is the very definition of a government operating under due process, where facts and legal standards, not personal relationships, dictate the course of action. It underscores a significant, non-negotiable policy within the current administration: no one, regardless of familial or political connection, is above the law.

The allegations themselves, particularly those against Romualdez, appear to rely on surprisingly thin foundations. One key piece of evidence cited is the sworn affidavit of a person named Orly Gotesa. However, the credibility of this affidavit has been heavily debated, especially given the apparent inability to produce Gotesa for further questioning by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Furthermore, the core of the evidence seems to focus on Romualdez’s period of responsibility as House Speaker—a circumstance that requires an explanation from his side, which he is fully capable of providing. The relative weakness of the initial evidence suggests that a formal investigation is precisely the correct mechanism to either validate the claims or dismantle them, preventing judgment by rumor or social media frenzy.

The prevailing issue on social media is the rush to judgment. In the age of viral content, a single document or a dramatic video can quickly lead to a public verdict of “guilty.” Former Speaker Romualdez has been prematurely convicted in the court of public opinion based on an affidavit whose source is currently elusive and a sensationalized narrative. This highlights a persistent problem: the public often substitutes due process—the careful collection of evidence, verification of facts, and impartial legal review—with the immediate gratification of social media spectacle.

President Marcos’s decision to hand the matter over to the Ombudsman clearly demonstrates his commitment to handling serious accusations through the proper governmental channels. It ensures that the process will be shielded from political maneuvering and media theatrics. The President is not endorsing the accusations; he is endorsing the correct legal procedure to determine the truth. Until the Ombudsman concludes its investigation and determines that there is probable cause, the allegations remain just that—allegations. No formal charges have been filed, and thus, no judgment of wrongdoing can legally or morally be made.

The narrative of “political betrayal” also fundamentally misreads the President’s personal and political calculus. The fact that PBBM felt confident and comfortable enough to publicly mention his cousin in the context of an ongoing investigation suggests a clear conscience and a belief that he, himself, is not implicated in any wrongdoing. If there were any legitimate entanglement, a political ally like Romualdez would arguably have leverage, making the President highly cautious about opening a public inquiry. PBBM’s openness is a strong indicator of his non-involvement and his confidence that the truth will be revealed through the process.

Ultimately, the President’s action reinforces a simple, powerful message: in his administration, there is no room for favoritism, be it for friends, allies, or family members. His job is to serve the Filipino people and uphold the law, not to shield relatives. The current situation demands that every government agency, including the Ombudsman, operates with the same level of impartiality and integrity, driven solely by evidence and a dedication to the truth. This stance—fair and square, without bias—is a necessary foundation for good governance and a critical step away from the days when political alliances seemingly dictated who was protected and who was targeted. The public must be guided by facts and the rule of law, not by social media gossip, to truly understand the integrity of this ongoing investigation.