Zaldy Co speaks in a video statement released online, where he details his version of events surrounding the 2025 budget process.
Budget Secretary Pangandaman, Malacañang and key lawmakers highlight procedural flaws in Co’s account, stressing that any presidential directives must appear in the NEP.
Former Ako Bicol party-list representative Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co has set off a political storm after claiming that President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman instructed him to help insert roughly ₱100 billion worth of projects into the 2025 national budget.
Co described the alleged directive in a video posted on November 14. His claims have been firmly denied by the administration and met with skepticism from senators and budget experts who say the account contradicts how the government’s budgeting process works.
Co’s video claims
In his statement, Co said he facilitated what he called large insertions during the bicameral conference committee discussions for the 2025 budget. He alleged that Pangandaman relayed instructions to accommodate about ₱100 billion in additional projects, many of them flood control and infrastructure items. He added that he informed then Speaker Romualdez, whom he claims supported the move.
Co described meetings involving senior Executive officials and said a list of proposed projects was reviewed. He later questioned why the President publicly distanced himself from the projects, insisting he acted based on what he believed were instructions coming from the administration. His claims, however, have not been delivered under oath and remain unverified.
Documents Co posted
To support his allegations, Co posted a list of projects he said formed part of the ₱100 billion insertion. Items ranged from about ₱5 million to ₱350 million and included road construction, flood mitigation structures, slope protection, bypass roads, bridges, drainage upgrades and coastal protection works.
He said the documents included page references for comparison with the National Expenditure Program and the enacted General Appropriations Act.
The list does not show who ordered the projects or whether they were irregular. The documents alone do not prove wrongdoing and would require validation through procurement records, sworn testimony and audit reviews.
Pangandaman’s categorical denial
Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman has issued a firm rebuttal, saying Co’s version of events is inconsistent with the national budgeting process. She said all presidential directives are already reflected in the National Expenditure Program, often called the President’s Budget.
Pangandaman explained that the bicameral conference committee is a legislative process and that once the NEP is submitted to Congress, the Executive branch no longer adds new projects. She said it is impossible for a directive of the scale described by Co to originate at the bicameral stage. Any presidential initiative for large additions, she noted, would appear in the NEP itself.
Malacañang response
Malacañang also rejected Co’s narrative and described his allegations as hearsay. Officials urged him to return to the Philippines and testify under oath, emphasizing that the administration had ordered reforms in infrastructure spending and launched independent reviews of public works projects.
Officials suggested Co may be attempting to divert attention from complaints he faces involving flood control programs.
Senators and academics question the account
At the Senate, Blue Ribbon Committee chair and Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said Co’s claims currently have no probative value because they were not made under oath.
Lacson also pointed to a central flaw in Co’s narrative. Since the President has complete control over the NEP, Lacson said, any major funding initiative would have been placed directly in the NEP, not routed through a legislator during bicameral negotiations. Several academics echoed the same view, citing the clear division between Executive authority during NEP preparation and the Legislature’s role in bicameral adjustments.
Co’s claim about staying abroad
Co has been abroad since July for what he says is medical treatment. He claims he was advised not to return after the State of the Nation Address and was told he would be “taken care of.” These statements remain unverified and have been denied or dismissed by those close to the officials he named.
