A religious leader has clarified his involvement in a controversial affidavit linked to 18 alleged former members of the Philippine Marines, widely referred to in reports as Ex-Marines. The issue centers on a sworn statement claiming that large sums of cash were delivered to several politicians upon instruction from former Ako Bicol party-list representative Zaldy Co. However, the religious leader made it clear that while he witnessed the signing process, he does not confirm the truth of the claims made inside the document.
Bishop Efraim Tendero, former secretary general of The World Evangelical Alliance, explained in a Facebook post that he was asked to witness the signing of a sworn statement by 18 men who were formerly enlisted in the Philippine military. This request came just two days before his scheduled flight to the United States.
He confirmed that he saw the 18 individuals appear before a notary public and witnessed the signing process. However, Tendero emphasized that his role was limited strictly to observing the procedure. He stated that he does not personally know the group and that they approached him because he is known for advocating transparency, accountability, and integrity in governance.
Clarifying the Role of the Witness
Courtesy: Bishop Efraim Tendero / Fb
Tendero stressed an important distinction regarding his participation in the affidavit process. He said that witnessing a document does not mean verifying the truth of its contents.
He clearly stated:
- He only confirmed that the 18 individuals appeared before a notary public.
- He witnessed that the signing process took place properly.
- He does not attest to the accuracy or truth of the statements inside the affidavit.
According to him, the responsibility for the truthfulness of the claims lies solely with the individuals who gave their sworn statements.
Allegations Made by the Ex-Marines
The affidavit submitted by the supposed Ex-Marines was introduced to the Office of the Ombudsman through their lawyer, Levito Baligod. In their sworn statement, the 18 individuals claimed that they served as bagmen who delivered suitcases filled with cash to various politicians and personalities.
Among the serious claims were:
- Delivery of cash to several unnamed politicians.
- Alleged involvement of former representative Zaldy Co.
- Claims that money was delivered to the house of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. in Ilocos Norte.
- Inclusion of ML party-list Representative Leila de Lima as one of the alleged recipients.
However, several of those named in the affidavit have strongly denied the accusations. Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro described the affidavit as a lousy script, if not delusion and outright lies.
Meanwhile, former Anakalusugan party-list representative Mike Defensor admitted helping the 18 supposed Ex-Marines but denied any involvement in drafting or preparing the affidavit.
Complications in the Legal Narrative
The case became more complicated after lawyer Levito Baligod initially admitted in a radio interview that he made a mistake in including Leila de Lima as one of the alleged recipients. Later, he reverted to the original claim of the supposed Ex-Marines, stating that she was indeed involved.
This shift raised further questions about the credibility and consistency of the allegations.
Tendero also clarified that when he signed as a witness, he did so in his personal capacity as a private citizen. He emphasized that he was not representing The World Evangelical Alliance or the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches. However, he acknowledged that because of his public positions, his actions may have caused misunderstanding, and for that, he expressed apology.
Government Response and Next Steps
The Office of the Ombudsman earlier announced that it would evaluate the allegations made by the 18 supposed Ex-Marines, including assessing the credibility of the individuals who made the claims.
At this stage, no official findings have been released. The evaluation will focus on:
- The substance of the allegations.
- The credibility of the affiants.
- Supporting evidence, if any.
As the investigation continues, the main issue remains clear: witnessing a document does not automatically mean confirming its truth. The bishop’s clarification highlights the legal distinction between observing a signing and validating the claims written inside the affidavit.
The controversy involving the Ex-Marines has drawn public attention due to the serious nature of the accusations and the high-profile names mentioned. However, as emphasized by Bishop Tendero, accountability for the content of the affidavit rests with those who executed the sworn statements.
Metro Balita Ph will continue to monitor developments regarding the Ex-Marines affidavit and the evaluation being conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman.
