The Co-Defensor-Marcos Impeachment Circus: A Philippine Farce in Three-Ring Corruption

Follow the Billions: The Real Flood Isn’t the Water, It’s the Money

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — January 26, 2026

MGA ka-kweba, welcome back to the fever swamp that is Philippine politics, where the clowns aren’t just entertaining—they’re running the show, and the audience is us, the tax-paying rubes left holding the bag. I’m Barok, your unflinching guide through the muck of Kweba ni Barok, and today we’re dissecting the latest spectacle: the burgeoning “Co-Defensor-Marcos Impeachment Circus.” This isn’t just a sideshow; it’s a full-blown carnival of hypocrisy, where fugitives play whistleblowers, opportunists pose as patriots, and the Constitution gets trampled like confetti under elephant feet.

Drawing from the fresh ink of that Inquirer report and a mountain of legal sludge, let’s peel back the layers of this rotten onion, shall we? You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll question why we bother with democracy at all.

1. The Cast of Clowns

First, meet our merry band of misfits, each more absurd than the last, strutting across the political big top with all the grace of a drunken trapeze act.

The Fugitive Accuser: Zaldy Co, the ex-Ako Bicol rep and former Appropriations chair who fled to Portugal like a bad sequel to The Fugitive, passport cancelled under Republic Act No. 11983, dodging Sandiganbayan warrants for graft in those botched flood control debacles. Now he’s slinging billion-peso kickback bombs from afar, because nothing says “credibility” like evading justice while accusing others.
The Opportunistic Prosecutor: Mike Defensor, the has-been congressman turned impeachment ringmaster, leading a ragtag coalition that’s less “justice league” and more “desperate househusbands of Duterte.” He’s the guy threatening lawsuits against House bureaucrats for not rolling out the red carpet for his complaint—because when your evidence is shaky, sue the messenger.
The Gatekeepers of Convenience: Cheloy Velicaria-Garafil and her underling Jose Marmoi Salonga at the House Office of the Secretary General (OSG), who played hot potato with the complaint, citing her vacation abroad as if the Constitution takes siestas. They’re the bureaucratic bouncers deciding which scandals get VIP access and which get bounced at the door.
The Imperial Target: Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the president whose initials now adorn dubious Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) formulas like a vanity license plate on a graftmobile, denying everything while his administration circles the wagons. He’s the ringmaster-in-chief, but this time the lions are biting back.
The Shadow Speaker: Martin Romualdez, the ex-Speaker lurking in the accusations’ shadows, allegedly pocketing billions in kickbacks alongside Marcos, per Co’s videos. He’s the silent partner in this duo, proving that in Philippine politics, family ties bind tighter than evidence.
The Coalition of the Grudging: Defensor’s motley crew—Jacinto Paras, Chavit Singson, Ferdinand Topacio, Manuelito Luna, Harold Respicio, and vlogger Mary Catherine Binag—a veritable “Murderers’ Row” of Duterte die-hards and legal loudmouths, tossing in wild cards like the International Criminal Court (ICC) “kidnapping” of Duterte (spoiler: no one’s kidnapped, just investigated). They’re the sideshow barkers, hawking impeachment tickets to anyone nursing a grudge.

2. The Legal Farce & Constitutional Travesty

Oh, the irony: a process meant to hold the mighty accountable devolves into a slapstick routine where everyone trips over their own feet. Let’s eviscerate this procedural clown car, clause by clause.

The Impeachment Charade

Three complaints lobbed like pies at a custard fight, each more ridiculous than the last. Defensor’s gang shoehorns in that fantastical ICC “kidnapping” charge—because apparently, international probes equal abduction in their fevered minds—while ignoring basics like actual evidence.

Contrast that with the Makabayan bloc’s more surgical strike on the “BBM Parametric Formula,” a DPWH policy that’s “Baselined-Balanced-Managed” but smells like baseline corruption, using the president’s nickname to prioritize projects. And don’t forget Andre de Jesus’s opener, endorsed by Rep. Jernie Jett Nisay, alleging graft and betrayal of public trust.

But here’s the punchline: Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution limits impeachment to high crimes like graft or betrayal, yet Section 3(5) slams the door with the one-year bar—no repeat shows within 12 months. As the Supreme Court hammered in Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 2003), complaints must be verified and endorsed, not just flung like confetti. This mess weaponizes impeachment as political theater, echoing the recent SC smackdown on the Duterte bid, where frivolous filings got the boot for lacking substance. It’s not accountability; it’s a vendetta in legal drag.

The Gatekeeping Gambit

Enter the OSG’s refusal to accept Defensor’s screed because Garafil was sunning abroad and Salonga claimed no authority—like the House is a mom-and-pop shop closed for lunch. Is this bureaucratic cowardice, shielding the boss from scandal, or just peak incompetence?

Under House Rules, receiving complaints is ministerial, not discretionary; failure screams for a Rule 65 mandamus writ, as in Tapuz v. Del Rosario (G.R. No. 182484, 2008), where courts compelled officials to perform non-discretionary duties. Defensor’s “threat” to sue? Pure theater, a sideshow lawsuit to distract from his complaint’s anemia. The real gag: if the OSG’s dodging, it’s orchestrated obstruction, turning the House into a fortress for the favored.

The Fugitive’s Tele-Testimony

Co offers to “testify” via teleconference from his Portuguese paradise—how convenient, avoiding the Sandiganbayan’s grip while dropping bombshells. But House impeachment rules demand witnesses swear oaths before the Justice Committee, with physical presence for cross-examination, lest it devolve into inadmissible hearsay.

Chairman Gerville Luistro nailed it: return or bust. Contrast Co’s evasion of his own graft trials—malversation and violations of Republic Act No. 3019‘s Section 3(e) on undue injury—with this virtual virtue-signaling. It’s a pathetic credibility grab, as if Zoom absolves fugitives. In Vasquez v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 118971, 1999). even whistleblowers need good faith; Co’s reeks of desperation.

3. The Underlying Rot: Follow the Money

Strip away the impeachment smoke and mirrors, and you’re left with the fetid core: billions vanishing into flood control black holes, a swamp of corruption that makes the Pasig River look pristine.

Co accuses Marcos and Romualdez of pocketing kickbacks—P1 billion personally delivered, per his videos—violating Republic Act No. 3019‘s Section 3(b) on direct/indirect benefits and Section 3(e) on manifest partiality causing undue injury to the government. Malacañang’s denials? As flimsy as wet tissue, calling it “hearsay” while the Ombudsman probes.

But Co’s own quagmire? He’s a fugitive with cancelled passport under Republic Act No. 11983, facing Sandiganbayan cases for substandard projects worth tens of billions—graft, malversation, the works. The mocking question: Is this a heroic whistleblower or a rat jumping ship, dragging everyone into the depths? His claims, if true, indict the system; if false, they’re libel under Revised Penal Code (RPC) Article 353, as in Vasquez v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 118971, 1999). Either way, the rot festers.

4. Motive Mongering: A Carnival of Self-Interest

In this circus, no one’s hands are clean; motives swirl like cotton candy laced with arsenic.

For Co: Deflection from his doom? Revenge for being cut loose post-resignation? A hail-Mary plea bargain bid under the Ombudsman’s gaze, or genuine exposé? The supreme convenience: hurling grenades from extradition-proof Portugal, where no treaty binds, per United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) loopholes. He’s the fugitive flipping the script.
For Defensor & Co.: Righteous crusade? Please—this is a Duterte loyalist hit job on a fracturing Marcos regime, with their eclectic crew (Paras the ex-lawmaker, Singson the governor-gunslinger, Topacio the lawyer-loudmouth) as a “Murderers’ Row” of has-beens. It’s political opportunism, exploiting the Marcos-Duterte rift for relevance.
For the House Leadership/OSG: Delay as tactical shield for the president, or just inertial incompetence? Motive: preserve the status quo, dodging the hot potato to let scandals fizzle.
For Marcos/Romualdez: Survival mode—deny, discredit, endure. Simple as that, with Remulla labeling Co “at large” to paint him the villain.

5. Paths Forward & Predicted Outcomes (With Cynical Certainty)

Mark my words, this circus folds before the finale. The impeachment? Dead on arrival—smothered in committee by Marcos allies, axed by the one-year bar under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution, or dismissed for insufficiency, mirroring the SC’s 2025 Duterte ruling emphasizing due process.

Real action? The Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan grind on Co’s cases, but extradition from Portugal? A pipe dream without a treaty—Interpol notices gather dust. Outcomes: Co lounges abroad as eternal fugitive, his poison lingers like bad aftershave; the administration emerges bruised, popularity in the tank; public trust? Eroded to bedrock, with more scandals brewing.

6. The Barok Verdict & Call to Action

In summation, dear disillusioned souls: Co’s likely a corrupt escape artist, Defensor’s posse political vultures, but the corruption stench they unearth? Undeniable, a betrayal of public trust under Article XI of the 1987 Constitution that demands daylight. This farce exposes a system where fugitives dictate drama from afar—hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.

So, calls to action, laced with mockery yet dead serious:

For Judicial Intervention: Haul the OSG to court via mandamus—not to salvage Defensor’s drivel, but to shatter the procedural farce, clarifying ministerial duties per Tapuz v. Del Rosario.
For Transparency & Real Investigation: Ombudsman, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)—treat Co’s claims with forensic fury, independent of this clown show, under Republic Act No. 3019‘s anti-graft mandate.
For Accountability All Around: Co, face your music; if evidence nails Marcos or Romualdez, pursue with equal vigor—no sacred cows.
For Institutional Reform: Mock this mess that elevates fugitives to stars. Reform impeachment rules, extradition pacts, and ethics codes to prevent such spectacles—lest the circus become permanent. Wake up, Philippines; the show’s over, but the cleanup’s on us.

Yours in perpetual, bone-deep disgust at the national clown car we call government,

—Barok

(From the depths of the Kweba, where truth still stinks worse than the Pasig)

Key Citations

A. Legal & Official Sources

B. News Reports

Mendoza, John Eric. “Zaldy Co Willing to Testify on Marcos Impeachment Complaint — Defensor.” Inquirer.net, 24 Jan. 2026.