The legal counsel of former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez has called on the Office of the Ombudsman to ensure that any resolution of the investigation against his client is based on a full and impartial assessment of the evidence.

Romualdez’s counsel and spokesperson, Atty. Ade Fajardo, made the statement Thursday amid reports that the anti-graft body was nearing a decision after receiving the submissions of the parties involved.

“It should not be stated that way. The result should not be pre-ordained. We can only hope for fairness,” Fajardo told reporters during a press conference.

The Ombudsman had ordered Romualdez and his co-respondents to submit counter-affidavits in connection with allegations of plunder, graft, bribery and money laundering.

Fajardo emphasized that the order to submit counter-affidavits is part of a preliminary investigation and does not mean that criminal charges have already been filed in court or that any respondent has been found guilty.

Romualdez submitted his initial counter-affidavit on August 7. Fajardo said the defense was set to file a supplemental counter-affidavit Thursday after securing additional time from the Ombudsman.

The supplemental filing would include statements from 25 former security, administrative and close-in aides associated with former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Zaldy Co, as well as documents concerning the reported recantation of retired Marine personnel Orly Guteza.

The Ombudsman earlier said that once all required submissions had been completed, the case would be submitted for resolution

Investigators are expected to assess the complaint, counter-affidavits, recantations and other corroborating or contradictory evidence before reaching a resolution.

Fajardo said the defense had already responded to all the allegations identified by the Ombudsman’s special panel of investigators.

“Actually, all the allegations have officially been made already because the Ombudsman has what they call a special panel of investigators. We have answered all of them,” he said.

The lawyer also maintained that there was no transaction or flood control project directly linking Romualdez to the alleged delivery of money.

“Apart from what we could call hearsay, there is nothing that links Congressman Romualdez to these transactions. There is no project, no flood control project,” Fajardo said.

He argued that the allegations against Romualdez appeared to be largely based on the positions he and Co held in the House of Representatives, with Romualdez serving as Speaker while Co was chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations.

“The story seems to revolve only around the fact that he was Speaker of the House when Zaldy Co was appropriations chair,” Fajardo said.

Fajardo further argued that the congressional budget process is a collective undertaking involving the House of Representatives, Senate and executive branch, and that Romualdez’s position as Speaker alone does not establish participation in any alleged unlawful transaction.

“If that is the theory of the case, then all the congressmen who participated, all the senators who participated because this went through the bicameral process, and even the executive department where the project originated would all supposedly be under the control of Congressman Romualdez. I think that is not consistent with human experience,” he said.