The Guteza Witness Controversy: Alleged Witness Planting in the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

Triggered by Senator Marcoleta name-dropping Mike Defensor, this piece walks through the Guteza witness controversy—from the forged-notary mess and timeline gaps to on-cam coaching and a last-minute Witness Protection flip—then connects those dots to the long Defensor–Marcoleta partnership (ABS-CBN fight, ivermectin push, INC ties, mining interests). It’s how I see the pattern behind the moves, and what that says about power games in Philippine politics.

The switch flipped the moment Senator Rodante Marcoleta said Mike Defensor’s name while presenting Orly Guteza. That one line set off alarms. I’ve watched Philippine politics for years—not as an insider, just someone who pays attention—so certain name combos and familiar moves light up old memories fast.

What follows is me laying out what I’m seeing: public reports, hearing clips, statements on record, and a timeline anyone can check. I’m connecting dots based on what’s out there and what I remember. I could be wrong on a few calls; if your read lands differently, fair. This is me thinking out loud because the pattern feels too familiar to ignore.

It’s déjà vu, and not the good kind. Now, the sequence.

Orly Guteza Steps Into the Spotlight

On September 24, 2025, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on the flood control corruption probe turned into a spectacle of its own. Orly Regala Guteza, a retired Marine who served 22 years and seven months before retiring on June 29, 2020, appeared as Senator Rodante Marcoleta’s surprise witness.

Guteza claimed that from December 2024 to August 2025, he worked as a security consultant for Ako Bicol Representative Zaldy Co. His job, he said, was to deliver suitcases stuffed with millions in cash—what he casually called “basura”—to the homes of powerful politicians.

The Defensor Connection

Guteza didn’t just wander into the Senate. He was delivered. According to Marcoleta, Mike Defensor made the call, introduced Guteza, and vouched that the retired Marine was ready to talk. Guteza even arrived with a statement already written out.

That detail alone tells you this wasn’t spontaneous testimony. It was arranged.

Defensor’s Dirty Record

Defensor’s involvement casts a long shadow. He has a history of standing in the middle of scandals.

During the Arroyo years, he tried to tear down NBN–ZTE whistleblower Jun Lozada by filing a perjury complaint on July 4, 2008, attacking Lozada’s account of being kidnapped at NAIA.

He also sat on the Petron Corporation board in 2007. Tie that to later business roles and you start to see the revolving door.

Pattern of False Accusations

2022: Accused Quezon City Mayor Joy Belmonte of corruption tied to COVID-19 procurements worth ₱479 million.
The Commission on Audit thoroughly debunked the claim.
The QC government said the attack “laughably and woefully backfired.”
Belmonte filed cyber libel cases over his posts.

His business dealings make it worse. He’s CEO of Pax Libera Mining, has chaired NiHAO Mineral Resources and Geograce Resources Philippines, and previously sat on Petron’s board. These ties to mining and construction overlap with DPWH projects under scrutiny in the flood control probe. Conflict of interest isn’t incidental here—it’s the pattern.

The Duterte–Romualdez Nexus

Defensor’s positioning explains why he inserted himself here. His ties to the Dutertes and hostility toward the Romualdezes read as opportunism, not principle.

In July 2019, he was forced to apologize after showing reporters a fabricated text message supposedly from Sara Duterte, urging lawmakers to block Alan Peter Cayetano’s speakership bid. Sara shot it down—“Not mine and not true”—and told him to stop sowing intrigue. He was already stirring the 2019 speakership fights, a contest that also touched Martin Romualdez and his bloc.

He kept himself near power. In 2016, he defended Duterte’s idea to offer Cabinet posts to communists. In 2022, he urged PSG protection for then president-elect Bongbong Marcos. He wasn’t inner circle, but he kept circling.

Now that Sara Duterte has broken with the Marcos–Romualdez camp—resigning from Lakas-CMD and facing impeachment—Defensor is aligned with her again. Floating a shaky witness like Guteza hits Martin Romualdez, props up Sara’s corruption narrative, and injects chaos into the probe.

A Personal Vendetta Against Romualdez

This isn’t just about alliances. For Defensor, it’s also personal.

He’s long opposed House leadership structures and stoked intrigue during speakership battles. Romualdez represents the establishment that sidelined him.

And the losses pile up. 2007: failed Senate bid (15th out of 12 seats). 2010: lost to Herbert Bautista for QC mayor. 2022: lost to Joy Belmonte. After each defeat came big claims that didn’t hold.

Meanwhile, the Romualdezes thrived—from Imelda to Martin—a dynasty that magnified his own failures. His family dabbled in politics too (his sister served in Congress), but they never built a machine like the Romualdezes.

It isn’t just rivalry. It’s envy with a calculator. And with Romualdez steering DPWH budgets that affect mining and construction, the grudge comes with financial upside.

The Arroyo-Era Playbook

If the Guteza affair feels familiar, it’s because Defensor has run this play before.

As Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s “superboy” and Presidential Chief of Staff, he handled damage control, message-shaping, and witness management. He also served as DENR Secretary. During Hello Garci, he produced sound engineer Jonathan Tiongco to challenge the tapes—classic counter-witness work.

He learned the witness protection maze, too. That matters, because Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla instantly accepted Guteza into the WPP, saying he “did not commit any crime.” It looked less like process and more like choreography.

The Marcoleta–Defensor Alliance: A Deep Political Partnership

The Guteza controversy isn’t just about Mike Defensor’s personal playbook. It’s also about the machinery he shares with Senator Rodante Marcoleta. Their relationship isn’t a coincidence—it’s a long-running alliance across administrations, built on shared methods, overlapping networks, and complementary strengths.

Historical Background and Early Connections

One overlooked thread is the Miriam Defensor Santiago connection. Mike is Miriam’s nephew, while Marcoleta has long aligned with the Santiago legacy through the People’s Reform Party (PRP). In 2025, PRP under Narciso Santiago Jr. endorsed Marcoleta’s Senate bid, framing him as reflecting Miriam’s reform-driven principles. That stitched Defensor’s family network to Marcoleta’s platform.

The ABS-CBN Shutdown

The clearest glimpse of their coordination came during the ABS-CBN franchise battle. In July 2020, a leaked Zoom call captured both men discussing plans to seize ABS-CBN’s compound and assets once the franchise was denied—Marcoleta talking facilities, Defensor mapping legal strategies.

When the vote came, they didn’t just align—they prevailed: they were among the 70 House representatives who voted to deny the franchise. Marcoleta spearheaded the legal case; Defensor backed him with documents and coalition-building. It wasn’t just a vote. It was coordinated.

The Ivermectin Partnership

In 2021, they moved in tandem again with the ivermectin push, despite WHO and Philippine FDA warnings. They ran mass giveaways—including branded “Ivermectin Pan-Three” events in Quezon City—issued joint defenses, and blasted Facebook for flagging posts. When critics asked why no charges, the FDA said it had “no jurisdiction to prosecute” either lawmaker for those distributions. They knew the gray zones and stayed inside them.

Party-List Coordination

They also mastered survival via party-list. SAGIP for Marcoleta (urban poor framing). Anakalusugan for Defensor (health-sector framing). Different mandates on paper, coordinated in practice.

The Iglesia Ni Cristo Connection

Marcoleta’s clout inside Iglesia Ni Cristo matters. He’s a Net 25 host and a prominent INC figure. INC’s endorsement of his 2025 Senate run underscored the tie. For ex-INC critics, his positions often track INC interests. Through Marcoleta, Defensor taps bloc votes and organizational muscle.

Business and Mining Ties

The alliance isn’t just political—it’s commercial. Defensor’s holdings span Pax Libera, NiHAO, Geograce, and that earlier Petron board seat. Marcoleta’s committee leverage touches infrastructure and public works—spaces that affect mining regulation and approvals. One shields the policy lanes; the other tends the money trail.

The Witness-Planting Playbook

The Guteza move fits their pattern. Defensor scouts and delivers the witness. Marcoleta supplies the platform—here, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. They coordinate rollout, amplify the narrative, and split the risks. If it collapses, each can step back.

Institutional Memory and Continuity

Both men are Arroyo-era operators. The methods—WPP maneuvers, technical counter-witnesses, pressure campaigns—are updated, not new.

Power Dynamics and Mutual Benefits

It works because their assets fit. Marcoleta brings Senate authority, legal chops, INC backing, and media presence. Defensor brings business networks, intel links, and a storied surname. Split the labor, share the wins, spread the risk.

The Guteza operation is only the latest example. Defensor identified the ex-Marine. Marcoleta gave him the mic. When it fell apart, both had cover. This isn’t a one-off. It’s a durable tandem—running on calculation, continuity, and chaos.

Cracks in Guteza’s Story

Stage-managed plays tend to unravel. And this one did, fast.

First, the affidavit. Atty. Petchie Rose G. Espera publicly disowned the paper bearing her name and seal. She said she did not notarize, sign, or participate in the preparation of the document, and called the signature and notarial details “falsified and unauthorized.” She emphasized the use of her name and commission was “spurious, fraudulent, and injurious.”

Then the timeline. Guteza claimed deliveries to Romualdez’s McKinley residence beginning December 2024. Romualdez said the property had been under renovation since January 2024 and unoccupied except for construction workers. He invoked falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus—false in one thing, false in everything.

And the coaching. Marcoleta introduced Guteza as a “volunteer” witness, yet video clips show him steering the testimony, guiding Guteza back to the script. Posts on X and Reddit threads flagged it in real time. It didn’t look free. It looked rehearsed.

The Political Playbook

So why roll out a witness this weak? Because weakness can be a weapon.

Inoculation Strategy

Float a flimsy case now so stronger cases later are easier to dismiss. As one legal observer put it, this move “makes it even more challenging to bring down MR unless something significant arises.”

Scapegoating Mechanism

Aim the spotlight at marquee names while the wider network behind the flood control anomalies slips into the dark.

Marcoleta’s Motivations

Deflection from heat over the Discaya couple and his push to protect them. Positioning against Panfilo Lacson amid a public turf fight. A shaky witness buys time and sets a new frame.

The Witness Protection Shortcut

Real whistleblowers usually reveal first, then run for cover. Guteza asked for witness protection as he testified. And Remulla approved it on the spot, saying he “did not commit any crime.” That’s not fear. That’s planning.

But by the end of the hearing, Guteza reversed himself: he said he was no longer interested in entering the WPP. The flip undermines the claim of imminent danger and makes the coordination look clumsy.

It reads less like a man in peril, more like a script that fell apart under questioning.

Implications for the Investigation

Credibility Damage

A forged notary, on-cam coaching, and an impossible timeline don’t just nick a witness—they poison the well. Defense teams can now argue patterned fabrication, not isolated error, and ask courts or committees to treat every related document and testimony with suspicion. The notarization issue alone raises chain-of-custody problems: if one affidavit is falsified, which attachments or corroborating statements are still reliable? The timeline gap (an unoccupied house under renovation) also gives the accused a clean, factual rebuttal that jurors and the public can grasp fast. Net effect: even good evidence gets pulled into the same gravity well and starts looking tainted by association.

Witness Protection Reversal

Opening with a WPP request signals imminent danger; ending by saying “never mind” kills that premise. The flip suggests coaching or coordination problems—either the threat was overstated, or the operation wasn’t thought through. It also weakens future witness appeals: prosecutors and committees may hesitate to extend protection if the last high-profile applicant treated it like a prop. For the audience, the reversal feels like a tell: if the risk were real, you wouldn’t walk it back on the same day.

Legal Precedent

This episode models a play: surface a shaky witness, launder claims through official proceedings, then let the collapse contaminate the topic. Once that tactic “works,” future operators have an incentive to repeat it—especially in headline cases where public opinion is the real battlefield. It also pressures committees to adopt stricter gatekeeping (document verification, digital forensics on affidavits, pre-hearing witness vetting, clearer coaching sanctions). Until those safeguards are standard, hearings drift further from fact-finding and closer to managed narratives.

Public Trust Erosion

People don’t need a legal brief to sense when something’s off—they see the coaching, hear the contradictions, and check out. When trust drops, two things happen: genuine whistleblowers think twice about stepping forward, and citizens tune out investigations that actually matter. That cynicism is a gift to corrupt networks; if the audience assumes everything is staged, accountability dies quietly. The Blue Ribbon Committee and the Senate don’t just lose a news cycle—they lose credibility they’ll need for the next real fight.

Why It Matters

Fake notarization. A house that couldn’t have hosted the drop. Lines fed on mic. A Witness Protection ask that turned into “never mind” before the day ended. Put together, that’s not noise—it’s a pattern people can spot without a law degree.

Moves like that make it easy to wave off everything as manufactured. Even clean documents start to look dirty by association. The next real whistleblower walks into a colder room, and the committee has less credit in the bank when it actually needs the public to listen.

If they cared about truth, the fixes aren’t complicated: check the paperwork before the microphones, verify addresses and dates against basic facts, cut the coaching, and be consistent about WPP. None of that is rocket science; it’s discipline.

And one more thing: I get that this can read like I’m defending Romualdez. I’m not. I do not like the man, I never voted for nor supported him, and never will. I’m cautious about what this witness does to the integrity of the investigation. If the Blue Ribbon can usher in a witness found at the last minute—handed over by a senator and a former congressman with a shaky record—what does that leave of the committee’s credibility? This didn’t feel like someone stepping forward; it felt arranged.