Zaldy Co has once again become the center of national attention after his explosive claim that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. inserted ₱100 billion into the proposed 2025 national budget. His allegation instantly created waves in political circles, but Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian felt that many parts of Zaldy Co’s story simply do not make sense. According to Gatchalian, several details in the exposé contradict long-established budget procedures, raising doubts about the accuracy and logic behind Zaldy Co’s statements.
In the ongoing discussions surrounding the national budget, transparency and accuracy are critical. This is why Gatchalian decided to speak up—not to defend anyone blindly, but to highlight inconsistencies that must be clarified for the sake of public trust.
A Claim That Raised Eyebrows
Zaldy Co, who recently resigned as Ako Bicol party-list representative, claimed that the President personally added a massive ₱100-billion insertion to the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA). The allegation immediately drew strong reactions because of the size of the amount and the implication that the President bypassed normal budget rules.
But for Sherwin Gatchalian, the supposed insertion did not align with how the budget system normally works. As the chairperson of the Senate committee on finance, Gatchalian has years of experience reviewing, adjusting, and correcting budgets. He emphasized that if the President wants to add something to the National Expenditure Program (NEP), it would be included at the very beginning—not at the end of the budget cycle.
According to him, this is the practice he has observed “over many years,” and it has remained consistent across different administrations.
Gatchalian: “Budget Insertions Don’t Work That Way”
Gatchalian highlighted a major logical issue in Zaldy Co’s allegation. He explained that the NEP is known as the President’s Budget, meaning every item proposed inside it already reflects presidential priorities. If the President truly wanted to include ₱100 billion worth of projects, he would place them upfront as priority items.
Placing them at the end—especially such a huge amount—would, according to Gatchalian, “mess up” the structure of the budget. Amendments that come very late in the process create confusion, delays, and inconsistencies in how funds are allocated.
This is why Sherwin Gatchalian found Zaldy Co’s claim unusual and contradictory to the established workflow of the national budgeting system.
A Closer Look at the Projects Zaldy Co Mentioned
Adding to his doubts, Gatchalian personally reviewed some of the projects Zaldy Co claimed were supposedly inserted by the President. According to Gatchalian, he discovered that several of these were projects located in Valenzuela—his hometown.
The problem? The projects were small local road improvements, not major national infrastructure. Gatchalian questioned why the President would add tiny, scattered projects across different provinces if he were making a huge, central insertion.
He emphasized that the President’s priority items are usually large-scale projects—national highways, major public works, big infrastructure—not minor secondary roads.
For Gatchalian, this was another red flag in Zaldy Co’s story.
The Mystery Deepens: Some Projects Were Even Vetoed
Gatchalian also checked another layer: the items President Marcos vetoed in the 2025 budget. Shockingly, he found that several items in Zaldy Co’s list were part of those vetoes.
This discovery made the story even more questionable.
As Gatchalian put it:
“If he supposedly inserted them, why would the President veto his own insertions?”
This contradiction strongly suggests that the list Zaldy Co presented did not reflect presidential insertions at all. Instead, it raised the possibility that some of these projects may have originated from somewhere else—possibly even from Zaldy Co himself, based on ongoing allegations.
Co’s Name Tied to Other Anomalies
The controversy surrounding Zaldy Co goes beyond his recent statement. He has been linked to several allegedly anomalous infrastructure projects, including questionable flood-control projects in Bulacan.
Former engineers from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) testified that Zaldy Co was involved in budget insertions ballooning to at least ₱35 billion from 2022 to 2025. Some testimonies even claimed that kickbacks were delivered to Zaldy Co in cash—one allegation involving ₱1 billion placed in more than 20 suitcases and brought to his penthouse in Taguig.
These earlier controversies have made many observers question whether Zaldy Co’s latest exposé is an attempt to redirect attention or shift the narrative away from allegations involving him.
Why Gatchalian Spoke Up
Sherwin Gatchalian explained that his goal is not to dismiss Zaldy Co outright but to ensure that claims affecting the national budget undergo logical and factual scrutiny. Misleading accusations can weaken trust in institutions and harm government processes.
Gatchalian stated that he is willing to support investigations that would help clarify the truth behind Zaldy Co’s statements. But based on the inconsistencies he discovered, he believes the exposé cannot be accepted as factual without deeper validation.
A Call for Clarity and Accountability
At this point, both the public and government bodies expect a clear explanation from Zaldy Co. If his claims are true, they would represent a major breach in the budget process. But if the story is inaccurate or fabricated, then it becomes a different form of wrongdoing—one that misleads the public and damages trust.
Gatchalian’s message is simple:
The details presented by Zaldy Co don’t match, and the logic behind his statements doesn’t add up. Until clear evidence is shown, the credibility of the exposé remains uncertain.
Conclusion
The debate over the ₱100-billion “insertion” continues to gain attention, but the inconsistencies highlighted by Sherwin Gatchalian bring important questions to the surface. Zaldy Co must clarify the gaps in his allegations, especially given his own involvement in previous controversies. As discussions proceed, transparency, accuracy, and accountability must remain the center of the conversation—ensuring that the national budget is handled with integrity and free from misleading claims.
Stay tuned at Juan 365 News for more updates!
