Supreme Court of the Philippines has ordered government officials to respond to a petition filed by former Ako Bicol party-list representative Zaldy Co, but clarified that it has not issued any temporary restraining order halting the proceedings against him.
In a statement released Friday, the High Court underscored that no TRO was granted in connection with Co’s appeal challenging the Ombudsman’s resolution recommending criminal charges over allegedly anomalous flood control projects.
Instead, the Court directed Jesus Crispin Remulla and the Independent Commission for Infrastructure to file their comments within 10 days from notice. The directive, however, was issued “without necessarily giving due course to the petition,” signaling that the Court has yet to determine whether the case will proceed to full review.
The petition stems from the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pursue charges against Co in connection with infrastructure projects flagged for alleged irregularities. Co had sought the High Court’s intervention to temporarily suspend the implementation of that resolution.
Ombudsman spokesperson Mico Clavano said the anti-graft office is prepared to defend its findings. “The sooner we resolve this, the better,” he told reporters, expressing confidence in the strength of the agency’s position.
The legal maneuver unfolds against a more complicated backdrop. In a separate development, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution dated February 3 declaring Co a fugitive from justice. The anti-graft court ruled that he cannot participate in proceedings or seek judicial relief unless he first surrenders to authorities.
The High Court had earlier indicated it would deliberate on whether Co’s petition falls under the long-standing judicial doctrine barring fugitives from seeking court remedies. Under prevailing jurisprudence, individuals who evade prosecution — not merely punishment — may be denied access to judicial relief.
Co left the country in 2025 citing medical reasons and has not returned since. In the interim, prosecutors filed malversation and graft charges over an allegedly substandard P289-million road dike project in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro.
With no restraining order in place, the Ombudsman’s resolution remains effective for now. The next phase hinges on the submissions of the Ombudsman and the infrastructure oversight body — and ultimately, on whether the Supreme Court will entertain the petition of a lawmaker now formally tagged as a fugitive.
The case raises a broader institutional question: can a public official who has yet to return to Philippine jurisdiction invoke constitutional remedies while facing criminal prosecution? The High Court’s forthcoming action may clarify the limits of judicial relief — and the consequences of remaining beyond the reach of the courts.
