Former Albay party-list representative Zaldy Co is preparing to take legal action against government authorities following the seizure of dozens of luxury vehicles linked to him and his firm, according to his legal counsel.

In a media interview, Co’s lawyer said complaints would be filed against officials involved in the confiscation of 34 vehicle keys, arguing that the operation allegedly went beyond the scope of the search warrant and lacked proper documentation. The vehicles were taken into custody during the implementation of a warrant related to suspected violations of importation laws and unpaid duties and taxes.

The vehicles were initially seized from a garage reportedly connected to Co, with custody later transferred to the Bureau of Customs. Authorities have said the search warrant covered several high-end vehicles allegedly imported irregularly, while the defense insists the operation was excessive and procedurally flawed.

According to Co’s lawyer, authorities allegedly confiscated all available keys rather than limiting the seizure to the specific vehicles named in the warrant. He questioned why vehicles not explicitly listed were rendered inaccessible, calling the move an abuse of authority and vowing to challenge it in court.

Government agencies involved, however, maintain that they were simply enforcing the warrant and following inter-agency coordination procedures. Officials explained that once vehicles suspected of customs violations are identified, securing them—including access keys—is necessary to prevent tampering, concealment, or removal.

The issue has raised legal questions about the limits of enforcement powers, particularly when search warrants intersect with property rights. Legal analysts note that while authorities may seize items reasonably connected to a suspected violation, courts often scrutinize whether such actions remain proportional and strictly within the bounds of the warrant.

Complicating the matter is the involvement of multiple agencies. Aside from the Bureau of Customs, the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group has reportedly assisted in evaluating vehicles possibly linked to importation anomalies. Some units were also temporarily parked at government-controlled facilities while ownership and documentation checks were ongoing.

Authorities clarified that not all vehicles taken into custody were directly named in the warrant, but some were allegedly flagged due to inconsistencies in registration records or importation documents. These findings, officials say, warranted further verification under existing customs and tax laws.

Co’s camp, however, disputes this explanation and insists that due process was not observed. His lawyer claimed that when they sought clarification, officers on site allegedly cited “orders from above” rather than presenting detailed justifications for each seized vehicle. This, he argued, weakens the legality of the operation and exposes officers to potential administrative and criminal liability.

The case unfolds against the backdrop of broader investigations involving infrastructure projects and budget-related controversies where Co’s name has previously surfaced. While the vehicle seizure is technically a separate matter, its timing has fueled public speculation about whether enforcement actions are connected to larger probes.

For now, authorities emphasize that the seizure does not presume guilt and that all actions taken remain subject to judicial review. The Bureau of Customs has said that should the vehicles be found to have been legally imported and properly taxed, they will be returned in accordance with the law.

As legal teams prepare for a court battle, the case is expected to test not only the validity of the seizure but also the balance between aggressive enforcement and the protection of individual rights. Whether the threatened lawsuits will proceed—and how the courts will rule—may set important precedents for future high-profile enforcement operations.