Ombudsman Files 2nd Case vs Zaldy Co Over ₱77M Flood Project

The Office of the Ombudsman filed a second malversation case against former Ako Bicol party-list representative Zaldy Co over a ₱77 million flood control project in Balagtas, Bulacan that investigators say was never built. The filing was made before the Sandiganbayan on Friday, 28 August, and names other respondents alongside Co.

The reported charges cover graft as well as malversation. Co has been charged. He has not been convicted, and the allegations have not been tested in court.

What the filing against Zaldy Co says

Four things are on the record. The case is the second malversation case against Co, not the first. The amount attached to it is ₱77 million. The project is a flood control project in Balagtas, Bulacan. And the allegation is not that the money was spent poorly, it is that the project does not exist.

That last distinction is the whole case. A non-existent project means the paperwork describes work that, according to investigators, nobody can go and inspect.

The word “second” is also doing work. An earlier malversation case against Zaldy Co already exists. Its amount and its project are not in the report we have, so the total Co is accused of misusing cannot be stated here.

Why a Bulacan project matters in Bicol

Balagtas is in Bulacan, roughly 400 kilometres from Legazpi. The Bicol connection is the party-list seat. Ako Bicol has held seats in the House on the argument that it represents this region, and its representatives have voted and sponsored on that basis.

So the question for a Bicol reader isn’t about a town in Bulacan. It’s whether a party-list that campaigns on representing Bicol has been a route for public money into projects elsewhere, and whether any project in this region has the same shape.

Nothing in the report answers that. We’re flagging it as the open question, not as an implication.

Details the filing does not make public

• Who the other respondents are. The filing names others alongside Co. Their names, their agencies and their alleged roles are not in the report.
• The first case. Its amount, its project and its filing date would show whether this is a pattern or two separate matters.
• The case numbers. Without them the Sandiganbayan docket cannot be followed independently.
• Any response from Co or from Ako Bicol. Neither had commented in what we read.
• Whether any Bicol flood control project appears in the same investigation. This is the question that matters most here, and it is unanswered.

The Sandiganbayan record and what it will show

Three things would move this on. The Sandiganbayan record, once case numbers are public, since that is where the schedule and the respondent list become checkable rather than reported. Any statement from Co or Ako Bicol, because a response changes what is contested. And the Ombudsman’s wider flood control investigation, if it names projects by province.

We will add the first case’s figure here when we have it, since the running total is the number readers will actually want.

The Bicol question is whether the same investigation reaches any project in this region. Nothing we read says it does. Nothing we read says it doesn’t.

Source Inquirer News, reported 28 August 2026. Written from the original report.