The battle for public trust in the Philippines often plays out not in the courts, but in the glaring light of media scrutiny. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the ongoing, volatile controversy surrounding former Congressman Zaldy (also referred to as Zaldico/Saldico). Accused of amassing illicit wealth and operating under a cloud of corruption, the politician has finally broken his silence, albeit through a spokesperson, unleashing a defense strategy that is both technically dense and emotionally charged.

The spokesperson’s appearance was intended to clear the air, but it only intensified the public’s frustration, raising more questions about Zaldy’s whereabouts, the true ownership of his alleged “air assets,” and the legal maneuvers being employed to sidestep accountability. The confrontation between the legal team’s focus on procedural minutiae and the public’s clamor for transparency has become the latest flashpoint in the national conversation about corruption.

The Shocking Reason for Zaldy’s Absence: Credible Death Threats
The pressure on Zaldy to appear and answer the “numerous allegations” against him is immense. As the host opened the discussion, questioning Zaldy’s absence and comparing him to other political figures who faced accusations publicly, the spokesperson, a lawyer, immediately delivered the primary defense for his client’s self-imposed exile.

The spokesperson confirmed that Zaldy has been wanting to address the allegations, which he claims have become “soured” and “twisted” by misinformation. However, the reason Zaldy is “hiding” is chilling: “credible serious threats to his life.”

He claimed that Zaldy “fears returning to the Philippines” due to public animosity, starkly stating, “one half of the country wants to throw him in jail… The other half wants to string him up by the nearest tree.”

The host immediately challenged this, questioning the logic of sending Zaldy’s alleged “air assets” abroad if his life was truly in danger. Furthermore, when asked if Zaldy would personally attend a Senate hearing on November 14, the spokesperson reiterated that Zaldy is “deathly afraid” of coming home. He defensively questioned the point of Zaldy appearing before the Senate, arguing it is merely an “investigation of facts, not an accusation,” though he assured they would respond if formally invited. The host countered this narrative by pointing out that Zaldy has powerful allies—mentioning Martin Romualdez and Bongbong Marcos—who could ostensibly provide protection.

Legal Gymnastics: The ‘Prejudged’ Case and the Missing Affidavit
The defense shifted dramatically into a highly technical legal argument concerning the ongoing investigation by the Ombudsman.

A reporter inquired about the Ombudsman’s invitation for Zaldy to file a counter-affidavit. The spokesperson conceded that his knowledge of Zaldy’s location is “irrelevant to the defense,” but stressed that Zaldy’s presence is indeed required to answer the charges.

However, the spokesperson launched a sharp critique of the Ombudsman’s process. He claimed he has not seen any “sworn complaint,” only a “tentative finding” referred by the ICI, which he believes is “not under oath.” He argued that the Ombudsman’s own rules require sworn affidavits from witnesses and complainants.

Crucially, the lawyer declared a lack of faith in the judicial process, expressing a firm belief that the Ombudsman has “prejudged” the case. This suspicion was fueled by Ombudsman Remulla’s intention to file cases by November 25 and Secretary Vince Dizon’s public statement about 60 people going to jail by Christmas.

Given this perceived lack of impartiality, the spokesperson concluded that there is “no tactical benefit to filing a counter-affidavit” at this time, essentially confirming Zaldy’s refusal to participate in the current stage of the process. The host was quick to criticize this stance, suggesting Dizon’s statement might be based on clear, obvious evidence, not prejudice.

This legal strategy—to focus on procedural technicalities and allegations of pre-judgment—is a transparent attempt to delay, discredit, and potentially dismiss the investigation before the substantive evidence can even be considered.

The Assets, The Aide, and the Stubborn SALN Silence
The spokesperson faced intense questioning regarding Zaldy’s alleged wealth, specifically the three choppers and the issue of cash deliveries.

When asked about the three air assets allegedly owned by Zaldy that have been moved out of the country, the spokesperson offered a categorical denial of personal ownership. He argued that the choppers belong to “Missibis Aviation,” a company that was “incorporated in 2004-2008,” well before Zaldy became a congressman in 2019. He logically posited that it is “illogical to claim these assets were ‘illegally acquired’” if they were part of a company established 17 years before he entered public office, making any attempt at forfeiture difficult. The host, however, expressed skepticism regarding this sudden denial of ownership, given prior public reports linking the assets directly to Zaldy.

The issue of transparency was highlighted further when a reporter asked if Zaldy was willing to voluntarily release his SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth) to prove his innocence. The spokesperson claimed there was “no need” because Ombudsman Remulla has “unlocked” SALNs, supposedly making them accessible to anyone. However, the host and reporters strongly pushed back, emphasizing that Zaldy should voluntarily release the document to prove his wealth was legitimately acquired, questioning why he would intentionally make the process difficult if he had “nothing to hide.”

Finally, the spokesperson addressed the allegations of cash deliveries made by Zaldy’s former aide, Orle Goteza. The lawyer claimed he only “heard Goteza’s name for the first time at the Senate hearing” and issued a categorical denial of any cash deliveries to Zaldy. When reporters inquired about Goteza’s whereabouts, the spokesperson pointedly stated, “We can’t find him sir… There you go,” implying the key witness’s current status is a mystery. He emphasized the need for “evidence-based” information, not just “chismis” (gossip) or speculation, in the investigation. The host agreed that Goteza’s full statement must be thoroughly investigated, including looking for a logbook at the alleged delivery location, expressing concern that vital evidence might have been hidden or altered.

The spokesperson’s performance, while legally cautious, ultimately served to amplify the public’s concern. By claiming fear for his life, refusing to file a counter-affidavit, denying ownership of highly suspicious assets, and highlighting the disappearance of a key witness, Zaldy’s defense team has positioned the case not as a search for truth, but as a procedural battle waged from the shadows, leaving the public to demand accountability that seems increasingly out of reach.