The air inside the press conference room was heavy with defiance, a sharp contrast to the palpable fear and anger consuming a nation recently battered by devastating floods. At the center of the storm is former Representative Zaldico, the man at the heart of the multi-billion-peso flood control scandal, whose prolonged absence from the Philippines has fueled public outrage. In a dramatic and often confrontational appearance, his legal counsel, a veteran in his field, laid out a defense strategy as audacious as the charges themselves: a claim of “credible and serious threats” to his client’s life that supersede all demands for accountability.

The lawyer did not mince words. He painted a picture of a man living in terror, stating, “One half of the country wants to throw him in jail and throw away the key. The other half wants to string him up by the nearest tree.” This extraordinary assertion was the core of his explanation for Zaldico’s refusal to heed summonses from the Senate and demands from the Ombudsman. For the defense, the threat of “vigilante violence”—the fear that a self-appointed “moral guardian of the Filipino people” might “take a paltik and shoot him anywhere”—is a valid, even paramount, reason for his continued stay abroad.

The spectacle of a lawyer publicly expressing this level of fear for a client’s life immediately reframed the public debate. It shifted the narrative from one purely focused on alleged financial crimes to a high-stakes question of personal safety and the justice system’s ability to guarantee it. The counsel even preemptively addressed the ancient legal concept that “flight is an indication of guilt,” dismissing it as a “misused and outdated” term, arguing that his client had initially left for pre-scheduled medical reasons long before the scandal escalated.

Challenging the Narrative: Is it Corruption or a Lack of Precision?
Beyond the fear factor, the legal defense aggressively tackled the very foundations of the corruption allegations. The counsel repeatedly insisted that the public narrative was “skewed” and “twisted” by “misinformation.” He adopted a highly technical and precise legal stance, challenging the media and the public to define corruption with the specificity required in a court of law.

“You have to indicate with precision the what, where, when, who, and how,” the lawyer stressed, arguing that a generic accusation of “corruption” holds no weight. He pressed the legal requirement that a crime of corruption must involve “damage to the government.” In a deeply controversial move, he suggested that since the controversial flood control projects were, in some cases, not even implemented, the legal requirement of actual damage to the government might not have been met—a chillingly formalistic argument in the face of widespread humanitarian suffering.

He further sought to dismantle the link between Zaldico and the contracting companies, such as the widely mentioned Sunwest, by stating his client had divested his interests before becoming a congressman. This divestment, the lawyer argued, legally insulates him from any wrongdoing by the corporation. “The stockholder is not the corporation,” he asserted, rejecting the public perception that the former Representative still benefits from or controls the firm.

The Billion-Peso Barrier: A Defense of Pre-existing Wealth
Perhaps the most astonishing point of the defense was the issue of Zaldico’s wealth. When asked about his client’s assets, the lawyer proudly declared Zaldico’s net worth was a staggering $4.1 billion upon entering office in 2019. This massive figure was wielded not as evidence of corruption, but as a shield against it.

The counsel dramatically compared Zaldico’s wealth to some of the country’s richest lawmakers, arguing that his client, a businessman who built his fortune over decades, was already richer than many established political figures before his term began. The implication was clear: a man this rich does not need to steal. This argument attempted to separate the perception of ill-gotten wealth from reality, suggesting the public merely misunderstood the scale of his legitimate business success. He further pointed out that if Zaldico were truly corrupt, he would be foolish to declare such a massive fortune in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

Evasion of Accountability: The ‘No Comment’ on Cash Deliveries and Aides
Despite the aggressive posture, the defense team was decidedly unyielding on key, specific accusations. When questioned about the alleged cash deliveries—including bags of money supposedly dropped off at the former Representative’s residence—the lawyer offered a flat denial. “No such thing,” he stated firmly, denying all cash deliveries, including the highly-publicized “love” money claims.

He maintained ignorance about the whereabouts of Zaldico’s former aides and potential witnesses, such as Paul Estrada and Mark Texai, only confirming he had read reports that one of them was in Chile, not Europe. Crucially, he also refused to confirm if he was in contact with Paul Estrada, the alleged recipient of the cash deliveries. His consistent use of the “I don’t know” response regarding the whereabouts of his client was not a slip of the tongue but a carefully calculated legal stance—a lawyer, he admitted, must not know his client’s location to avoid being compelled to lie under oath in court.

A Nation Underwater, A Leader Absent
The press conference took place against a backdrop of national anguish. The media played videos showing the devastating flash floods, the images of submerged communities, and shivering children, directly linking these real-life tragedies to the alleged failure of the flood control projects. The journalists passionately argued that the public outrage was not just “misinformation” but the legitimate cry of victims whose lives and livelihoods were destroyed.

The lawyer’s technical defense, while legally sound in a vacuum, seemed morally hollow to a population demanding immediate and tangible justice. By stating that his client would return only when the “fear of violence against him abates,” a timeline that could stretch indefinitely, the defense effectively signaled that Zaldico will likely remain out of the country for the foreseeable future. The fate of the multi-billion-peso scandal, and the accountability of its key figure, now hangs in a precarious legal limbo, leaving the Filipino people to wonder if their cries for justice will ever be answered, or if a brilliant, technical defense can successfully shield a man from the consequences of a national disaster.