The political landscape of the Philippines is reeling from a series of extraordinary video revelations made by former House Committee on Appropriations Chairman Zaldy Co. In a dramatic shift from silence to open accusation, Co has alleged a deep-seated financial scheme involving some of the country’s most powerful figures, including the highest-ranking executive and legislative officials. This is more than just a scandal; it is a profound crisis of confidence, directly challenging the integrity of the nation’s leadership.

Co’s legal counsel, Atty. Rondain, has confirmed the gravity of the situation, asserting that his client possesses a cache of “strong” and “unshakable” evidence to back his claims. This collection reportedly includes receipts, revealing photographs, and even video documentation, details of which are being strategically released to the public. The former congressman, who has taken a position outside the country, has been meticulously detailing his involvement and knowledge of a vast, multi-billion-peso scheme, fundamentally altering the public’s perception of governance at its highest level.

Fear and the High-Stakes Game of Political Survival
Despite the explosive nature of his disclosures, Co’s current emotional state is not one of triumph, but of profound fear. Atty. Rondain shared that Co is “relieved” to have spoken out but is now even more “scared,” precisely because he has named the individuals he was previously only hinting at. This fear, the attorney clarifies, is not mere paranoia but a genuine concern for his personal well-being, given the immense power and influence of those he has implicated.

The lawyer has been a crucial communication link for Co, noting that direct contact has become increasingly difficult, relying primarily on text messages. The reason for Co’s absence is central to the controversy. While the government and the Office of the Ombudsman urge him to return and formally testify under oath, Atty. Rondain strongly advises against it.

This reluctance stems from a stark reality: the potential for immediate detention. The lawyer contends that the government’s objective is to file a non-bailable offense against Co—a tactic, he notes, that has been historically used against political adversaries. This legal strategy, according to Rondain, aims to incarcerate an individual for a decade or more while legal proceedings drag on, even if they are ultimately cleared of the charges. The fear is not of being proven guilty, but of being neutralized and potentially subjected to harm while in state custody.

The clear message from Co’s camp is: “Give him bail. Guarantee him bail while he is on trial, and I will bring him home now.” Until such a guarantee is provided, his counsel believes that returning to face charges that would lead to immediate, non-bailable detention is a catastrophic risk.

The ‘Conduit’ Defense: A Billionaire’s Fatal Flaw
Perhaps the most contested part of Co’s testimony is his claim that he was merely a “pass-through,” a “delivery agency,” and that he never personally profited from the multi-billion-peso schemes. Atty. Rondain reiterated this point, asserting that Co has receipts and other evidence to show he did not receive kickbacks.

This claim has been met with widespread skepticism. The idea that a powerful and wealthy congressman—a declared billionaire even before his term—would agree to act as a courier, risking his reputation and freedom for no personal gain, defies conventional logic. Rondain acknowledges this, attributing his client’s complicity to a “lack of strength to resist.”

According to the narrative, Co was allegedly utilized to funnel funds related to the national budget, with the money being passed through his control before being delivered by his staff to the residences of the key individuals involved. This makes him a vital, if unwilling, witness to the scheme’s mechanics. He wasn’t a collector, as the funds were delivered to him by personnel linked to the projects; he was the facilitator who ensured the money reached its final destinations.

The lawyer stresses that the issue is not the insertion of projects—which he maintains is not illegal per se—but the alleged, illegal kickbacks. The criminal act, according to Co, was the mandated 100% to 25% kickback on these insertions.

The Ombudsman’s Credibility and the Legal Challenge
A significant element of this unfolding drama is the challenge being posed to the impartiality of the Office of the Ombudsman, specifically by Ombudsman Samuel Martires. The administration insists that Co’s video testimonies hold no weight because they were not given under oath.

Atty. Rondain vehemently disputes this, directly challenging the Ombudsman’s interpretation of the law. He points out that the Ombudsman is legally empowered to initiate an investigation based even on an anonymous letter, making the insistence on an under-oath testimony for such an explosive, named complaint appear disingenuous. The lawyer cites instances where the Ombudsman previously acted on unsworn reports, raising serious concerns about the double standard being applied to Co’s allegations.

Rondain characterizes the entire official response as a “political” move, designed to deflect from the allegations rather than seriously investigate them. He is calling for the Ombudsman to immediately open an investigation into the named officials, rather than targeting the witness.

The Future: More Revelations and a Plea for Due Process
While Co remains in an undisclosed location, his lawyer has confirmed that more videos are anticipated, continuing the strategy of drip-feeding information to the public. This is seen by the lawyer as a means of managing “info overload” and ensuring the gravity of the story is absorbed by the public over time.

Rondain is appealing to the public for fairness and patience, asking them to reserve judgment until the full body of evidence is released. He contends that many people are quick to judge, particularly given the accusations of no personal profit, but he is confident the evidence will prove his client’s position.

He concluded with a powerful defense of his client’s rights and the integrity of the justice system: “It’s easy to say, ‘Go home and face it.’ It’s easy to say that when there is no threat to detain you. If you put an innocent man in jail even for a day, the system has already failed.” For Zaldy Co, the fight for his life and his truth is intrinsically tied to the battle for due process and impartiality in the highest levels of the Philippine judiciary. The nation waits for the next revelation, knowing that this scandal has the potential to redefine its political history.