AN investigator of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) has confirmed that no funds from contractors, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), or former congressman Zaldy Co were traced to the bank accounts of former speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, dealing a significant setback to the prosecution’s financial allegations in his ₱7.4-billion plunder case.
Testifying before the Sandiganbayan Third Division on Thursday, November 12, AMLC financial investigator Atty. Jan Mark Busa said investigators found no evidence linking approximately ₱560.5 million in inflows to Romualdez’s accounts during his speakership to unlawful activities or anomalous flood control projects.
Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Atty. Rashel Ann Pomoy, Busa confirmed that AMLC examined 35 accounts associated with Romualdez and found no deposits or transfers from contractors allegedly involved in the flood control controversy.
The investigator also confirmed that none of the identified inflows came from or was found to be related to flood control projects.
The findings emerged despite the AMLC’s examination of 1,951 financial transactions covering the period from 2003 to 2025.
Busa conceded that records of Romualdez’s banking transactions have been hitting billions almost two decades before he joined politics and became Speaker of the Lower House.
Based on his report, the former House leader’s financial transactions dating back to 2003 to 2007 totaled P3.4 billion, long before he was elected to public office.
On the other hand, between 2022 to 2025, Romualdez’s total banking transactions captured by AMLC’s system amounted to P4.509 billion.
Noting the almost 20 years of difference between the two periods, the defense extracted an admission from the AMLC officer that the amounts were not even adjusted for inflation.
Busa acknowledged that in his report he highlighted that “substantial activity was already present from 2002 to 2007.”
During the hearing, Romualdez’s counsel pointed out that even before joining politics, the former Speaker already had substantial investments including Atlas Consolidated Mining (1975), Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (1973), Benguet Corp. (1991), Banco de Oro-Unibank (1991), Aboitiz Equity Ventures (1994), and Cebu Holdings (1994), among others.
Asked if the AMLC found that the transactions of defendant Romualdez was not commensurate with his known financial capacity, Busa replied: “Based on the reports, no mam.”
Busa disclosed that he underscored in his report that the total of covered transactions he found related to Romualdez’s accounts was only P560.545 million – too small compared to the P55 billion to P57 billion alleged cash deliveries in 2025 cited in the Ombudsman’s complaint filed with the AMLC.
He confirmed that investigators made no finding that the ₱560.5 million originated from unlawful activities.
Even compared to the amount of P7.4 billion ill-gotten wealth mentioned in the pending plunder case, Busa admitted that the P55 to P57 billion allegation does not come close.
“There’s still a huge disparity,” Busa agreed when asked on cross-examination if the numbers still do not add up.
NO DIRECT MONEY TRAIL
The AMLC investigator also testified that no direct transfers were identified from Romualdez to Golden Pheasant, OMLAW, Samchan or lawyer Jose Paras in the transactions examined.
Busa said the allegations that Paras and Golden Pheasant acted as dummies for Romualdez originated from the Ombudsman’s complaint-affidavit and were not independent findings of his investigation.
The investigator also confirmed that Romualdez’s financial and investment activities predated his entry into politics.
According to Busa, the financial activity recorded during Romualdez’s speakership was not unprecedented when compared with earlier periods, while investigators made no finding that the transactions examined were inconsistent with his financial capacity.
COURT QUESTIONS BASIS OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS
During questioning by the Sandiganbayan justices, Busa acknowledged that the suspicion surrounding several transactions was based on allegations furnished by the Ombudsman rather than independently established evidence connecting them to corrupt activities.
When asked whether the transactions would still appear suspicious without the allegations in the complaint, Busa answered in the negative.
The investigator also acknowledged that he had no independent evidence establishing that the beneficial ownership of assets had been concealed, apart from information contained in the Ombudsman complaint.
Questions were likewise raised concerning the purchase of the property identified as 30 Tamarind.
Busa confirmed that the transaction involved manager’s checks obtained through Samchan and OMLAW, with none drawn from Romualdez’s accounts.
He also acknowledged that Romualdez did not appear as a party to the documented transaction chain.
While investigators had identified grounds to suspect that the property transaction might involve unlawful proceeds, Busa said there was no definitive finding establishing such a connection.
SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR BAIL HEARING
The testimony could bolster Romualdez’s bid for bail by raising questions about the strength of the financial evidence connecting him to the alleged proceeds of anomalous flood control projects.
In plunder cases, the court must determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong when deciding whether an accused may be granted bail.
The AMLC findings are particularly significant because the agency examined Romualdez’s financial transactions but did not identify direct payments from contractors or establish that the ₱560.5 million in inflows represented proceeds of unlawful activities.
The testimony, however, does not by itself dispose of the prosecution’s allegations, including claims involving cash deliveries that may not have passed through the examined accounts.
The Sandiganbayan will ultimately determine whether the prosecution’s evidence, taken as a whole, is sufficiently strong to justify denying bail.
For Romualdez’s defense, the AMLC testimony provides a substantial basis to challenge the alleged financial connection between the former Speaker and the flood control controversy.
metrosundaily
