Zaldy Co to oppose passport cancellation, lawyer says

Former Ako Bicol party-list representative Zaldy Co will oppose the move to cancel his passport, his lawyer said Thursday as he dismissed the allegation that Co's camp attempted to blackmail the government.

In an interview with Super Radyo dzBB, Atty. Ruy Rondain said they will formally oppose the cancellation once they receive the documents.

“Lalabanan. Oo. May 5 days kami from receipt of the motion (We will fight it. Yes. We have five days from receipt of the motion to appeal it),” he said.

Asked whether the cancellation would change Co’s statements, he replied in the negative.

Pressed on whether Co’s movements would be restricted, he responded: “Well, then we’ll see when we get there. Let’s cross that bridge.”

Rondain also said he was not the lawyer who supposedly approached Malacañang to negotiate in behalf of Co.

He was referring to the statement of President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. on Wednesday that Co's camp tried to blackmail him.

“Meron po akong babanggitin sa inyo. Nilapitan po kami ng abogado ni Zaldy Co at nagtatangkang mag-blackmail na kung hindi po namin kakanselahin daw ang passport niya, hindi na raw siya maglalabas ng video. I do not negotiate with criminals—kahit maglabas ka na ng video ng lahat ng kasinungalingan mo na pag-destabilize sa gobyerno,” Marcos said.

Rondain said he would not advise Co to do such a move as it is illogical.

“Hindi. Hindi logical e. Let’s say, hypothetical, ako ’yan, sinabi ko ’yan, mag-ga-guarantee ba nila hindi kakanselahin ang passport? Hindi nga sa kanilang decision ’yon. So bakit ako mag-bargain ng something na alam ko hindi nila kaya?” he said.

(No. It’s not logical. Let’s say hypothetically that I was that person, can they guarantee that the passport won’t be canceled? That’s not even their decision. So why would I bargain for something they cannot guarantee?)

Only a court can order a cancellation of a person's passport.

Rondain further said Co fears for his safety should he be detained in the Philippines.

“Ang primary concern niya talaga safety niya. Kasi sabi niya, i-detain ako niyan (His primary concern really is his safety. He told me, 'they will detain me'),” he said.

Asked if Co has no trust in authorities to keep him safe while in custody, the lawyer pointed to past incidents in detention facilities.

“Hindi nila ma-assure 100% kasi hindi nila kontrolado ang environment 24 hours a day. Ilan nang alam natin na napapatay sa kulungan?” said Rondain.

(They cannot assure it 100% because they have no control over the environment 24 hours a day. How many have been killed in detention?)

When asked if the threat to Co’s life is serious, the lawyer replied in the affirmative.

“Oo. Nararamdaman niya ’yan. Kaya nga siya nag-disclose na dahil ang fear niya...Protection sa gusto niyang sabihin. Kung hindi ko masabi ito later on, ito ’yung totoo. Kung may mangyari sa akin, ito ’yung totoo,” he said.

(Yes. He feels that. That is why he exposed it. He disclosed these things because of fear. He revealed them. It was protection for what he wanted to say. If I can’t say this later, this is the truth. If something happens to me, this is the truth.)

Valid leads

Rondain also rejected claims that the videos released by his client were “hearsay” or inconsequential due to the absence of a sworn affidavit, saying the disclosures remain valid leads for investigation.

He said criticisms that Co’s statements should be dismissed for absence of an affidavit were misplaced.

“Hindi. Hindi tama ’yan. Hindi hearsay ’yan kasi report niya ang actual conversation nila. Hindi hearsay ’yan. Kung hearsay ’yan, hearsay na lahat. Wala nang admissible,” he said.

(No. That is not correct. That is not hearsay because he is reporting their actual conversation. If that is hearsay, then everything becomes hearsay. Nothing would be admissible anymore.)

He argued that the absence of an affidavit does not invalidate a disclosure or excuse authorities from conducting an inquiry.

“Ridiculous ang proposition na kailangan under oath ang sumbong or disclosure… Imbestigahan mo. Kung hindi ka naniniwala, sabihin mo hindi ka naniniwala. But don't say na kailangan affidavit. Hindi kailangan,” he said.

(It’s ridiculous to say that a report or disclosure must be under oath… Investigate it. If you don’t believe it, say you don’t believe it. But don’t say it needs an affidavit. It is not required.)

AI?

Rondain also addressed claims that Co’s videos may have been artificially generated or altered. He said such arguments are irrelevant because Co posted the material on his official Facebook account.

“Tama. Basta hindi niya dini-disclaim, hindi niya dini-disown. Tama ka, ke AI ’yan o hindi. Kanya ’yon. Let me assure you, hindi ’yan AI," he stressed. 

(That's right. As long as he hasn’t disclaimed or disowned it, it’s his—AI or not. Let me assure you, that is not AI.)

More videos 

Rondain also hinted that more videos may be released, noting that Co had previously said he still had additional information.

Asked if the latest release was the last, he said he does not know but he thinks more are coming.

“Tingin ko mayroon pa. Kasi di ba sinabi niya mayroon pang ibang sasabihin siya (I think there are more. Didn’t he say he still had things to say)?" he said

He explained that the disclosures were made in parts because Co could not narrate everything in a single sitting.

“Siguro mahirapan siya basahin in one sitting. Nakakapagod nga naman (Maybe it was difficult for him to read everything in one sitting. It can be tiring)," he said.

Rondain also questioned the relevance of the Palace’s position that it would only issue a full response once Co’s “entire” narrative is made public.

He stressed that each allegation must be addressed on its own merit.

“The truth, your version of the truth must stand on its own whether pira-piraso siya or buong storya (The truth—your version of the truth—must stand on its own whether in pieces or as a whole story)," he said.

Rondain added that speaking out has been a form of emotional release for Co.

“Benefit nito at least ’yung catharsis, nakapaglabas na siya,” he said, adding:
“He looks better sa last video niya. Mukhang mas relaxed na siya.”

(The benefit is the catharsis; he let it out… He looks better in his last video. He seems more relaxed.)

The lawyer also questioned how Malacañang obtained information linking frozen assets to his client when the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) proceedings are confidential.

“Paano alam ng Presidente? Alam ko confidential ang AMLC (How did the President know? As far as I know, AMLC information is confidential)," he said.

The President had earlier mentioned that the frozen assets reportedly included aircraft and helicopters associated with Co.

Rondain said even if air assets were mentioned, these belonged to companies where Co merely holds shares, not to him personally.

“O sige, ibang istorya ’yon… assuming na sa mga kumpanya ’yon. Hindi sa kaniya ’yon, pagmamay-ari ’yon ng mga kumpanya na may share siya (Alright, that is a different story… assuming those belong to the companies. Those are not his; they are owned by companies where he only holds shares.)

No talks with Duterte camp

Rondain also denied claims that Co was coordinating with the Duterte family or was being used to destabilize the administration.

“Naku hindi totoo ’yan. Hindi totoo ’yan. Wala siyang kausap (That is not true. It is not true. He is not talking to anyone)," he said.

He said Co’s disclosures were his own and aimed solely at clearing his name.

The lawyer also dismissed suggestions that Co was part of a destabilization effort.

“Wala naman power ng isang tao para i-destabilize ang isang buong gobyerno (One person does not have the power to destabilize an entire government)," the lawyer said.

Co currently faces malversation and graft charges over an alleged substandard 289-million road dike project in Oriental Mindoro and has an outstanding arrest warrant issued by the Sandiganbayan.

He earlier denied receiving kickbacks but later released a video implicating Marcos and the former Speaker, Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, in the alleged insertion of P100 billion in the 2025 General Appropriations Act during the bicameral conference committee deliberations.

Marcos has said he would not dignify Co's allegations while Romualdez said his conscience remained clear.

He also accused House Majority Leader and presidential son Rep. Sandro Marcos of allegedly ordering nearly P51 billion in budget insertions from 2023 to 2025, and First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos of allegedly intervening in congressional inquiries into agricultural price spikes. The Palace has denied the allegations. —Sherylin Untalan/AOL, GMA Integrated News