House Majority Leader Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos sees no reason to take legal action against the group accusing him of pocketing cash-stuffed suitcases, telling reporters that going after them would only hand them the attention they want.
Pressed during a chance interview on Wednesday on whether he intended to file a complaint, the Ilocos Norte first district representative answered in a mix of Filipino and English: “Is it really worth it? Is it really worth it, honestly? Then also give them publicity? Don’t bother. … We’re here to finish a lot of work…”
The presidential son rejected outright the claim that he was among the recipients of the so-called maletas, dismissing the people behind it as untrustworthy. “We don’t dignify the testimonies … It’s all BS,” he said.
His denial centers on what he portrays as a pattern in how the accusations surface. The group, he argued, only targets those who oppose its interests — a point he illustrated by citing the case of Senator Francis Escudero, whose name, according to Marcos, appeared on the list of alleged suitcase recipients only after the senator aligned with the Senate’s majority bloc. As reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Marcos noted that the cases were filed against individuals who were sitting with the majority rather than the minority at the time.
The accusations trace back to 18 individuals who say they once served as security aides and couriers for Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co, the former Ako Bicol party-list representative who chaired the House appropriations committee in the 19th Congress and is now a fugitive. The group claims Co directed them to hand over luggage packed with cash to a roster of officials and lawmakers, allegations first laid out in an affidavit dated February 25, 2026, and repeated more recently before a Senate Blue Ribbon panel. Among those they have named alongside Marcos are Senators Tito Sotto and Erwin Tulfo and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, all of whom have denied any wrongdoing.
The credibility of the 18 has come under scrutiny on several fronts. The Armed Forces of the Philippines has said it would be misleading to keep calling them “ex-Marines,” noting they were no longer in service when the alleged deliveries took place, while the Philippine Navy stated that most had been dishonorably discharged and that four never served in the naval infantry at all.
Doubts about whether the testimony would hold up in court have also been raised by legal scholars. University of the Philippines College of Law associate dean Paolo Emmanuel Tamase, in remarks to dzBB, cautioned that shifting accounts from witnesses are dangerous given the wide public reach of the flood control hearings, and urged closer questioning of those coming forward and a careful look at whether their individual affidavits line up.
