When a former lawmaker releases a video claiming massive corruption in a government agency, the public pays attention — as it should. The so-called expose of corruption inside the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) by former Ako Bicol Party-list representative Zaldy Co has generated noise, outrage, and political theater. But beneath the drama lies a deeper question: what is the value of an accusation that is not made under oath, subjected to cross-examination, or supported by documents that can stand scrutiny in court?
A law student would tell us that in law, statements not made under oath — and outside formal proceedings — carry no probative value. They are not evidence. They cannot send anyone to jail. They cannot even be the basis for an administrative case. At best, they are leads that investigators may examine; at worst, they are political grenades lobbed without accountability.
The controversy surrounding Co’s video expose of alleged DPWH corruption has opened not just one debate, but two. The first is about corruption — an issue that rightly angers a weary public. But the second, and perhaps more urgent, is about the growing trend of “trial by social media,” where accusations are launched not in the halls of Congress, not before the Ombudsman, not through sworn testimony — but through videos crafted for maximum viral impact.
Following the first supposed video expose by former representative Co, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla urged Co to return and file the charges against those whom he named as having received “dirty money” from ghost flood control projects.
Recently, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. — whom Co named alongside former speaker Martin Romualdez in his latest supposed video-expose as having received fleeced money from flood control projects — also challenged Co to return and face the charges against him.
In Monday’s press conference, President Marcos Jr. challenged Co to come home and face the accusations against him. Or, if Co has a case against the President, he will face him, Marcos said. “I’m here, I’m not hiding,” he added.
“For it to mean something... Umuwi siya dito, harapin niya ‘yung mga kaso niya... Kung mayroon siyang gustong sabihin, sabihin niya. The people will know that, eh. But, come home, why are you hiding so far away?” Marcos said.
“We’ve had many discussions about fake news, and anyone can go online and make all kinds of claims, all kinds of things... over and over, but it means nothing,” the President stated.
This is what makes Co’s video problematic. Accusations of large-scale corruption in a major infrastructure agency have serious consequences. They erode public trust. They cast suspicion on entire institutions. And yet, presenting such claims in a casual, edited video — rather than in a notarized affidavit or an official complaint — raises doubts about intention. Is the goal to fight corruption, or merely to shape public perception?
If Co truly possesses evidence of wrongdoing within Congress and the DPWH, he has multiple avenues mandated by law and by his office: filing a complaint before the Ombudsman, triggering congressional inquiries, endorsing whistleblowers to formal proceedings, or submitting evidence to the Commission on Audit, Department of Justice, or the Ombudsman. These mechanisms exist precisely so that corruption allegations can be tested — not just heard.
By choosing a video expose instead, he bypasses the very accountability filters that give truth its credibility. A claim made under oath carries risk: perjury. Statements made in a viral video carry none. This does not mean, however, that his allegations should be dismissed outright.
Corruption in public works is a long-standing and well-documented problem. The public is rightfully angry. But outrage must be coupled with responsibility. The fight against corruption cannot depend on theatrics; it must be grounded in due process.
In a time when public discourse is driven by clips, reels and sensationalism, we need leaders who can distinguish between advocacy and performance. If Co wants the country to take his allegations seriously, the next step is simple and necessary: place them under oath, submit them to the proper forum and allow the evidence — not the video — to speak.
That is how truth is defended. And that is how corruption is exposed.