‘Testifying vs Marcos not a priority for Zaldy’

MANILA, Philippines — He may have tagged President Marcos to be part of the anomalies in flood control projects, but testifying against Marcos during impeachment proceedings is among the least of priorities of former lawmaker Zaldy Co, his lawyer said.

In an interview with “Storycon” on One News on Friday, lawyer Ruy Rondain agreed that it is good for Co’s testimony to be authenticated so it can be used in an impeachment case against the President.

But Rondain said that, at this point, this is not the primary reason why Co made the video alleging Marcos’ involvement in corruption related to government infrastructure projects.

“That’s low in his priority list,” Rondain said, referring to Co’s testifying against Marcos. “I asked Zaldy if he is willing. (He said) ‘it is low in my priorities.’ ”

Rondain did not disclose what is his client’s top priority at the moment, but maintained that his allegations can still be used by prosecutors to initiate a probe.

Investigators have said they cannot use Co’s statements if these are not sworn upon.

Co, subject of arrest warrants issued by the Sandiganbayan, has been in hiding abroad since the flood control scandal broke last year.

While he admitted being part of the scheme, specifically in supposedly delivering money to those involved, Co claims that he did not benefit at all.

This is the reason why he will not agree to any restitution, Rondain said.

“He did not profit from it. And therefore, if he did not profit from it, there is nothing to return,” said the lawyer.

Co was chair of the House committee on appropriations, which is in charge of deliberations on the proposed national budget.

He was also the founder of Sunwest Construction and Development Corp., one of the top government contractors for infrastructure projects.

Allegations against Co outlined how he supposedly used his position for a scheme that siphoned billions from government coffers.

Rondain maintains that the charges against his client were “trumped up” and that he “can get an acquittal.”

“The problem is that the charges are non-bailable… Even if I can get him acquitted eventually, he’ll be in jail for 10 years,” he said when asked why his client still has not returned to face charges.