Election expert flags ‘suspicious’ notary in a BSKE case filed at SC

Veteran election lawyer Romulo Macalintal. —INQUIRER files

MANILA, Philippines — Election law expert Atty. Romulo Macalintal on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to require the Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas and 51 ‘punong barangays’ (village chiefs), along with their legal counsel, to explain the circumstances surrounding the notarization of their sworn statements.

In his very urgent manifestation of grave concern, Macalintal said the sworn statements submitted to the Supreme Court by the intervenors supposedly from various places around the country were notarized on a single day by the same counsel, Atty. Petchie Rose G. Espera.

Espera’s signature appeared in the affidavit of Orly Regala Guteza, the witness against former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, as the one who notarized it.

However, Espera denied having notarized or prepared the affidavit of Guteza, calling it “falsified and unauthorized.”

“I categorically deny notarizing, signing, or participating in the preparation of the said document. The signature and notarial details attributed to me are falsified and unauthorized,” Petchie Rose Espera said in a letter to a news network asking that its social media post showing the affidavit be taken down.

READ: Lawyer denies she notarized affidavit of Senate witness

In this case, Macalintal said the signature that was publicly disowned by Espera closely resembles the notary’s signature used on the vast array of sworn documents, including verifications, resolutions and Special Powers of Attorney, submitted as part of the Petition-in-Intervention in the pending case.

The Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas intervened before the Supreme Court, asking it to dismiss the petition filed by Macalintal that challenged the constitutionality of the law postponing the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE).

The original sworn documents filed by the Intervenors—representing local village chiefs from various municipalities across the country—were all purportedly subscribed and attested to before Atty. Espera in the City of Manila on a single day: August 18, 2025.

Macalintal had previously flagged this circumstance as highly suspicious, noting the logistical improbability of dozens of barangay captains from different provinces, including far-off Isabela, gathering in Manila to prepare and sign identical documents before the same notary on the same day.

The motion highlights specific irregularities, such as a Barangay Resolution from Wigan, Cordon, Isabela, which was allegedly adopted and notarized in the City of Manila on the same date – August 18, 2025.

“With due respect, petitioner finds it highly suspect how all these punong barangays in different parts of the Philippines could be gathered to prepare, explain, and adopt various resolutions (which share extremely similar wordings) and verification and certification of non-forum shopping just in one day by the same notary public,” Macalintal said.

He noted the similarity of Espera’s signature appearing in Guteza’s affidavit and the documents submitted to the Supreme Court.

“In view of the startline revelation, it is the Petitioner’s respectful submission that the intervenors and their counsels should be directed to explain the circumstances surrounding the notarization of their aforesaid sworn statements and clarify whether they personally subscribed and attested their respective documents before Atty. Espera,” he said. /apl