Shadows and Synchronization: Questioning the Timing of Alleged ‘Tell-All’ Amidst Major Accountability Rally
Executive Summary
The political landscape in the Philippines is currently fraught with tension following the surfacing of former party-list representative Zaldy Co, who made sensational corruption allegations against high-ranking government officials, including President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez. These claims, delivered via video, emerged just two days before a major, three-day “Rally for Transparency, Accountability, Justice, and Peace” organized by the influential religious group, Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), scheduled at the Quirino Grandstand in Manila (November 16-18). This synchronicity has prompted intense scrutiny and suspicion from political observers, most notably House Deputy Minority Leader and Mamamayang Liberal party-list Representative Leila de Lima, who publicly questioned the controversial timing, labeling it “suspect.” This article delves into the implications of these explosive allegations, the political dynamics at play, the official reactions, and the profound need for established judicial process amidst a burgeoning climate of public dissent.
I. The Confluence of Events: Allegations Precede Public Outcry
The core controversy revolves around the highly specific timing of Zaldy Co’s video revelations. Co, the former Ako Bicol party-list representative, had been largely out of the public eye until his recorded statements materialized. His initial video claimed that President Marcos Jr. himself allegedly directed the insertion of an astronomical P100-billion worth of flood control projects via the Bicameral Conference Committee—a legislative stage often referred to as the “pork barrel” gateway.
The allegations escalated dramatically in the second part of his video, released on a Saturday, just hours before the scheduled start of the massive INC rally. Co detailed alleged acts of bribery, claiming he, his staff, and security personnel delivered suitcases filled with cash to both President Marcos Jr. and former Speaker Romualdez. Most damningly, he alleged that the President received a 25% cut, equivalent to P25 billion, from the purported insertions.
Representative Leila de Lima articulated the prevailing skepticism regarding the sudden appearance of these claims:
“The timing, to me, is suspect. One cannot avoid thinking about the timing because massive protest actions have been planned,” De Lima stated at a recent news forum in Quezon City.
The planned INC gathering, which the group’s spokesperson, Minister of the Gospel Bro. Edwil Zabala, explicitly stated is non-political and focused solely on “transparency, accountability, justice, and peace,” is nonetheless poised to amplify public clamor regarding a perceived lack of governance integrity. The rally aims to highlight the estimated over a trillion pesos allegedly lost to corruption in climate-tagged and flood control projects since 2023. The simultaneous eruption of Co’s high-profile corruption claims, targeting the very top of the executive and legislative branches, injects a volatile political dimension into an already charged atmosphere of public protest.
II. Official Dismissal and Political Disbelief
The administration’s response to both the allegations and the rally has been one of staunch denial and strategic downplaying.
President Marcos Jr. categorically dismissed Co’s claims, asserting he did not “want to even dignify” the allegations that he received billions from budget insertions, signaling an official stance of treating the claims as beneath serious consideration.
Malacañang, the official residence and workplace of the President, has similarly projected confidence regarding the forthcoming INC protest. The Palace expressed doubt that the action would fundamentally spark widespread outrage against the Marcos administration, positing that INC members are discerning enough to know “who is lying and who is truly working for the country.” This strategy attempts to neutralize the impact of the protest by questioning the credibility of the primary accuser while appealing to the loyalty and judgment of the INC community.
Furthermore, reactions from other political figures underscored the lack of judicial weight Co’s videos currently hold. Former Senator Panfilo Lacson, known for his work in exposing budget anomalies, stated that Co’s claims, presented without legal testimony, held “no probative value.”
III. The Critical Demand for Due Process and Vigilance
The core message from De Lima and other proponents of the rule of law is a crucial distinction between public disclosure and legally admissible evidence. De Lima has repeatedly demanded that Zaldy Co return to the Philippines to formalize his testimony.
“Unless and until he gives his testimony under oath, and that their statements were put on record under oath, his claims won’t have probative value. It will just be a story,” De Lima emphasized. “But we cannot say that we should ignore these.”
This call highlights the imperative that such serious accusations, regardless of their sensational nature or the timing of their release, must be subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of the justice system. The Department of Justice (DOJ) spokesperson, while noting the high-profile nature of the revelations, affirmed that the existing timeline of their probe would not be affected, suggesting a methodical approach independent of the media spectacle.
IV. Internal Political Divides and Accusations
The controversy has also served to expose deep fault lines within the political class. Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, a staunch ally of former President Rodrigo Duterte and a known critic of the current administration, used the opportunity to launch a sharp critique against opposing political factions.
In a Facebook post, Dela Rosa accused certain groups, specifically referencing “Pinklawans & Komunista” (a pejorative term for liberal and progressive sectors), of deliberate silence. He suggested they were currently engaged in a strategy to “appear righteous & anti-corruption kuno at the same time prevent the downfall of this gov’t from which they benefited a lot.”
Dela Rosa’s statement adds a layer of intricate political maneuvering to the situation. His critique implies that opponents of the Marcos administration who might otherwise seize on corruption claims are hesitating because of potential perceived benefits derived from the current regime, further polarizing the debate and complicating any genuine, unified anti-corruption front. The timing of his statement is also notable, as it follows recent reports, including one from Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, about a potential arrest warrant issued against the Senator by the International Criminal Court (ICC), placing him under his own public spotlight.
V. The Imperative for Public Discerning Vigilance
In this climate of high drama, protest, and political finger-pointing, Representative De Lima stressed the overarching need for public discernment.
“We have to look at it, you know, deeper… What is critical here is that if they would be able to convince enough forces, enough elements, of the military, of the AFP, to join those calls either for the resignation or the ouster of the President,” she warned.
This statement elevates the matter beyond mere corruption claims; it touches upon the stability of the state. When political accusations are synchronized with massive public demonstrations, the potential exists for the crisis to transition from a legal challenge into a legitimate, destabilizing political movement.
Ultimately, the confluence of Zaldy Co’s dramatic, unsworn revelations and the imminent, large-scale INC rally creates a profound test for Philippine democracy. It is a critical moment where the public’s emotional response to perceived corruption must be balanced by a vigilant insistence on due process and the rule of law, ensuring that allegations—no matter how spectacular—are validated by evidence and formal testimony, rather than merely serving as political ammunition.