Bawi o Laban: Ombudsman vs. Cong Dong, et al

ON OCTOBER 16, mainstream media had a field day reporting the Office of the Ombudsman filing with the Sandiganbayan three counts of graft against former House Senior Deputy Speaker and Pampanga 3^rd District Rep. Aurelio “Dong” Gonzales Jr. over his alleged links to construction firms that secured public works contracts worth P611 million while he was in office.

The cases, as reported, stemmed from two separate complaints filed in July and August 2026 over three contracts awarded by the Department of Public Works and Highways Regional 3 to A.D. Gonzales Jr. (ADG) Construction and Trading Co. Inc. 

The contracts in question were for flood mitigation projects in the City of San Fernando and Bacolor town worth over P252 million, and two flood control projects in Mexico town worth some P265 million and P94 million.

In its joint resolution, the Ombudsman reportedly found prima facie evidence against Gonzales for having a prohibited financial interest in ADG Construction during his term as a congressman. 

In a post-filing presser on the same day, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla alleged that Gonzales violated the conflict-of-interest provision of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft Corrupt Practices Act).

“Usual story. There’s divestment, but (the money) still goes back to him. There’s no real divestment… Payment made to the construction companies where he supposedly divested still goes to his private bank accounts,” Remulla claimed.

Overstressing the point: “So, there was really no real divestment, right?”

Right, going by Section 3(h) of RA 3019 prohibits public officials from having a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction in which they intervene or take part in their official capacity.

Remulla clarified that the case filed was not plunder, a non-bailable offense, but graft, with bail set at P90,000 for the accused’s provisional liberty.

Which, by some contemporary coincidence, makes it intriguing, Remulla’s clarification, that is.

The feeding frenzy attendant to the Ombudsman filing graft cases against Gonzales apparently starved reportage on the same Ombudsman dismissing plunder, malversation, and other criminal complaints against the same Gonzales, et al but a day before. 

Absent in the mainstream media, even in other online publications, is a PR story posted on Oct. 16 on the Pampanga-based Balitang-Balita online news platform titled: Ombudsman dismisses plunder, malversation complaints against ex-Rep. Dong Gonzales, co-respondents for second time.

The story underscored that the dismissal marked the second time the Ombudsman “has thrown out substantially similar allegations filed by Terrence Napao, a barangay chairperson from Mexico, Pampanga.” 

“In a Joint Resolution covering cases OMB-C-C-JUL-26-0085 (FIO v. Gonzales Jr.) and OMB-C-C-AUG-26-0096 (Napao v. Gonzales Jr., et al.), the Ombudsman found insufficient evidence to support claims of conspiracy among the respondents, emphasizing that conspiracy cannot be presumed and must be established through specific factual allegations and proof of concerted action.” The press release said with attached pages from the resolution date stamped: Oct. 15, 2026. 

It furthered that the Ombudsman also dismissed “for lack of evidence” complaints involving alleged violations of Articles 216 and 217 of the Revised Penal Code, Section 3(e) of RA 3019, RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), and RA 7080 (Anti-Plunder Act).

“[D]ocumentary evidence, including completion inspection reports, certificates of completion, technical evaluation reports, technical inspection reports, and updated geotagged photographs,” the press release emphasized as bases for the dismissal of the complaints, albeit no specifics were cited.

Closing with: “The latest ruling reinforces the Ombudsman's earlier dismissal of a similar complaint filed in 2023, further narrowing the controversy to the remaining conflict of interest case.”

Ombudsman dismisses plunder case vs. Gonzales, et al in 2023.

Ombudsman dismisses plunder case vs. Gonzales, et al Oct. 15, 2026.  

Ombudsman files three graft cases vs. Gonzales, et al Oct. 16, 2026.

Bawi. Bawi. Laban. If we go by the cobrador’s degla.

If not for anything else, the timing is telling.  

Comes now the betting: Sa pula kay Boying, sa puti kay Dong. Logro diez, larga!