The Man Who Fights Back
Former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV has never been the type to absorb a hit quietly. When Rodrigo Duterte tried to revoke his amnesty in 2018, Trillanes sat inside the Senate and dared the government to come arrest him. When pro-Duterte accounts smeared him over the Scarborough Shoal backchannel talks, he filed cyberlibel cases. And now, ten days after lawyer Levito Baligod and 18 alleged ex-Marines accused him of receiving $2 million to facilitate ICC investigators, he filed cyberlibel and perjury complaints and named names.
On March 5, 2026, Trillanes filed complaints against Atty. Levito Baligod, the 18 former soldiers, former Congressman Mike Defensor, broadcaster Jay Sonza, former NTF-ELCAC spokesperson Lorraine Badoy, and vlogger Cathy Binag. The charges: cyber libel and perjury. His position is absolute. He is accusing the other side of fabricating the entire thing, and he believes he can prove it in court.
He also told anyone willing to listen exactly who he thinks is behind it: the Duterte camp.
That is a bold move. It might even be the right move. But before accepting it as a clean counterattack, there is something that needs to be examined first.
The Problem He Created for Himself
On March 1, 2026, Trillanes sat down with Jessica Soho and was asked directly about the allegations. His answer left no room for interpretation.
"Wala pong mga ganyang mga meetings. Ang ginagawa kasi nila komo ngayon eh nasa hot water si Zaldy Co, parang madampihan ka lang ni Zaldy Co, parang nasa impiyerno ka na."
Translation: "There were no such meetings." Not a hedge. Not a "I don't recall." A flat, categorical denial.
Then on March 2, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin "Boying" Remulla went on GMA News and said the exact opposite.
"Totoo 'yon. Nakipag-usap ako kay Trillanes. Pinakilala niya sa akin 'yung ICC, yung 2 personnel ng ICC. Kasi nga meron kaming usapan na ang testigo ay dapat protektahan..."
Translation: "It's true. I talked with Trillanes. He introduced me to the ICC personnel, two of them. Because we discussed that the witnesses should be protected."
Remulla said the meeting took place at his Makati residence after Duterte had been transferred to The Hague, while Remulla was still serving as Justice Secretary. He described it plainly, as a matter of official duty under the Witness Protection Program. He did not have to name Trillanes. He volunteered it.
So here is the core problem with Trillanes's counterattack strategy: he filed perjury complaints against people he accuses of lying, while his own denial of the meeting now stands directly contradicted by someone with no obvious motive to fabricate Trillanes's presence in that room.
Either Trillanes misled the public on national television the day before Remulla's admission. Or Remulla is lying about who introduced him to the ICC personnel. Those are the only two options. And that gap matters enormously, because the credibility of his entire counterattack rests on his own truthfulness.
The Accusation Behind the Accusation
"Ang nasa likod nitong pagkilos na 'yan ay ang Duterte camp," Trillanes said in his March 5 statement. He had been building this argument publicly since late February, and it is worth following the reasoning, because it is more than a reflexive denial.
Trillanes pointed to physical evidence: one of the vehicles used to transport the 18 soldiers to their press conference at Club Filipino was registered to the wife of Mike Defensor, a known Duterte ally. He noted the timing: the allegations landed on February 24, exactly one day before the 40th EDSA anniversary, at the precise moment Duterte's confirmation of charges hearing was underway in The Hague. He described the logistical complexity of coordinating 18 people, arranging transportation, preparing a 31-page joint affidavit, and staging a press conference as far too organized to be spontaneous.
His theory on motive is also coherent. The Duterte camp stands to benefit from two simultaneous outcomes: discrediting the ICC case, and destabilizing the Marcos administration ahead of the impeachment hearings against Vice President Sara Duterte. If the ICC investigation collapses under a bribery scandal, PRRD's case falls apart. If Marcos is politically weakened, Sara gains room to maneuver. One press conference, two wins. That is a real motive, and it is not paranoid to note it.
The ICC itself denied the bribery claims within 24 hours, stating through its Office of the Prosecutor that all investigation expenses are funded through the Court's own budget and that it independently identifies and vets all witnesses. That is a direct institutional denial of the central allegation.
The Remulla Problem That Won't Go Away
Setting aside Trillanes's personal denial for a moment, the Ombudsman's position in this entire controversy is genuinely problematic, and it has not received the scrutiny it deserves.
Baligod's affidavit named Remulla as someone who met with ICC-linked individuals at his residence, and alleged this constituted graft by causing "undue damage to the government." Remulla called the joint affidavit a "canard" and questioned its legal validity, arguing that a single document combining 18 people's accounts does not meet the personal knowledge standard required in sworn statements. He wants individual affidavits from each soldier. That is a defensible legal position.
But Remulla is now the Ombudsman tasked with investigating a complaint that names him as a respondent, while having publicly confirmed a version of the events described in that same complaint. He confirmed the meeting. He confirmed Trillanes introduced him to the ICC personnel. He confirmed the discussion about witness protection. His defense is that this was legitimate official conduct under the DOJ, not ICC "assistance" in an investigative sense.
There is also a deeper inconsistency that the Remulla article published on this site laid out. At a Senate hearing on March 20, 2025, Remulla stated under questioning: "We did not assist the ICC. We never had contact with them." Less than a year later, he is on national television confirming he met ICC personnel at his own home. His explanation, that witness protection coordination is categorically different from assisting the investigation, is internally consistent. But it is a fine line, and it directly contradicts his earlier public testimony.
The conflict of interest here is not subtle. An Ombudsman investigating a complaint in which he is named, about a meeting he admits occurred, is an arrangement that should generate far more scrutiny than it has.
What the Navy Said
One of the most damaging early developments for the Baligod camp came not from Trillanes but from the Philippine Navy. Navy spokesperson Captain Marissa Martinez confirmed within 48 hours that four of the 18 individuals who appeared with Baligod were never members of the Philippine Navy or Marine Corps at all. Two others claimed to have been Army personnel whose records would need separate verification. Of the remaining group, most were dishonorably discharged. Only a small number retired in good standing.
Dishonorably discharged does not automatically mean lying. But if four members of an 18-person group have no military records at all, the natural question is how they were recruited into this group, and by whom. Trillanes's legal team will push hard on exactly that question.
Baligod acknowledged at least one error: the inclusion of Leila de Lima's name in the cash recipients list. He admitted the witnesses did not personally claim to have delivered cash to her, only that she attended certain meetings. He corrected it publicly. That candor cuts in both directions. It suggests a willingness to revise the record, but it also raises the question of how many other errors the consolidated affidavit contains.
Where This All Sits Now
What is confirmed: Baligod filed a complaint with the Ombudsman. Remulla confirmed meeting Trillanes and ICC personnel while serving as DOJ Secretary. The Navy confirmed significant credibility problems with the group of 18. The ICC denied its operations were externally funded. Trillanes filed cyberlibel and perjury complaints on March 5. A vehicle registered to Defensor's wife was reportedly used to transport the soldiers. Baligod acknowledged at least one factual error in the affidavit. And Trillanes denied the meeting on national TV the day before Remulla confirmed it happened.
What is alleged but unproven: that P805 billion was delivered to politicians via suitcases, that $2 million was handed to Trillanes for ICC-related expenses, that the Duterte camp financed and organized the 18 soldiers, that Remulla met ICC-linked individuals at his home for improper purposes, and that a large-scale troll farm was funded with dirty government money.
Trillanes filing complaints forces the process into a legal venue where evidence has to be tested rather than playing out purely on social media. That is a sound strategic instinct. But the strategy only works if his own hands are clean, and right now there is a publicly unresolved contradiction at the center of his credibility that he has not addressed directly.
He said there were no such meetings. Remulla said he organized one. One of them is not telling the truth. And that question does not disappear just because the Duterte camp may have worse motives.
Disclaimer: The allegations discussed in this article have not been proven in any court of law. Antonio Trillanes IV, Levito Baligod, and all named individuals are presumed innocent unless and until found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. This article represents the author's analysis of publicly reported events as of March 5, 2026.
