Congressional colleagues of actor-turned-politician Rep. Richard Gomez welcome a Committee on Ethics investigation into his much-criticized reaction against journalists seeking an interview over allegations of sub-standard flood control projects in his congressional district in Leyte.

Reps. Ronaldo Puno of Antipolo City and Terry Ridon of Bicol Saro Partylist believe that local journalists whom Gomez offended in his Facebook rant may pursue disciplinary action against the two-term solon.

On Tuesday (August 26), accused journalists of being bribed and feigning objectivity when they requested an interview to get his side to the alleged claims aired by Matag-ob town Mayor Bernie Tacoy against defective infrastructure projects, particularly flood control systems, in Leyte.

Tacoy claimed his locality is being left out of flood control projects notwithstanding the fact that Matag-ob is flood prone.

Instead of giving in to the reporters’ request, Gomez accused them of accepting bribes. He also published on his FB page screenshots of the reporters’ private information.

In a press conference at the Batasan complex in Quezon City, Puno said journalists who felt aggrieved by Gomez’s actions are free to seek disciplinary action against him through an ethics panel investigation.

"That is why we were elected as legislators because the people believed in our capabilities to explain clearly,” he said.

On the other hand, Ridon called out Gomez for failing to show respect to news reports, adding that he must now back his claims with evidence.

“It’s difficult to air assumptions that our brothers and sisters in the media are being paid to do a particularly thing,” said Riddon.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines hided Gomez for violating the privacy rights of journalists by publishing their contact numbers.

“We remind Gomez that media asking for his side ont he matter actually favors him,” the NUJP said in a statement.

The organization added: “If Gomez preferred not to speak about the issue, a simple ‘no comment’ or lack of response would have sent that message without imputing malice or exposing our colleagues’ private information.”