Restoring trust in the fight against corruption

President Marcos’ stark declaration on Thursday that there will be “no Merry Christmas” for those implicated in the flood control scandal was a powerful piece of political theater.

It resonated with a public weary of grand corruption and empty promises, offering a vision of swift, certain justice. However, the immediate caution from the chair of the very commission investigating the scandal, Andres Reyes Jr., who labeled the statement “premature,” exposes the chasm between presidential rhetoric and institutional reality.

For the President’s word to be trusted, he must navigate this chasm carefully, moving beyond pronouncements to a demonstrable, principled, and sustained process that proves his administration’s commitment is to justice, not just to headlines.

The first and most critical step the President must take is to publicly and unequivocally respect the independence of the investigative and judicial bodies.

Mr. Reyes’ reminder that the Independent Commission for Infrastructure is a “recommendatory body” is a crucial check on executive overreach.

The President’s power does not, and should not, extend to directing the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial decisions or a judge’s gavel.

Any perception of him strong-arming these institutions would undermine the legitimacy of any eventual conviction, painting it as a political reaction to pressure from a nation impatient with results, rather than a legal conclusion.

The President’s role is to ensure his agencies have his full backing, with enough resources, political cover, and institutional support to do their jobs without fear or favor. He must be their champion, not merely their commander.

There is, too, the imperative to demonstrate impartiality. He cannot be perceived as someone prescribing selective justice when it comes to his cousin, former Speaker Martin Romualdez.

When asked why Romualdez, who was likewise alleged to have received millions (if not billions) in kickbacks, wasn’t on the list of the initial batch of case referrals transmitted by the ICI to the Office of the Ombudsman which implicated some 37 individuals, he remarked, “We don’t file cases for optics.”

Correctly so, but the President must take care that the principle must be applied uniformly.

The public’s trust will be won or lost based on whether the investigation follows the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of political affiliation or familial connection. If enough evidence eventually points to the former speaker, the President must allow the case to proceed sans hindrance. Because the fight against corruption is only credible if it is impervious to any allegiance, whether to kin or politics, or both.

Another categorical imperative is the fostering of transparency throughout the process. While specific details of an ongoing investigation must be protected to ensure its integrity, the public should be kept informed of its progress.

The ICI and the Ombudsman must provide regular, high-level updates on the status of case reviews, the number of cases filed, and the legal hurdles being navigated.

This transparency manages the public expectations and demonstrates that, even if the wheels of justice turn slowly, they are indeed turning. Silence breeds speculation and cynicism; communication builds confidence.

Finally, the President must frame this not as a one-off purge but as the cornerstone of a systemic reform.

The flood control scandal is a symptom of a deeper malaise in public procurement and political accountability.

While jailing the corrupt malefactors in this particular flood control scandal is essential, the President’s legacy will be defined by whether he leaves the system more resilient than he found it.

This means championing legislative and administrative reforms, strengthening procurement laws, enhancing the digital tracking of public funds, and protecting whistleblowers.

By articulating a long-term vision for institutional integrity, he will show that his goal is not merely to punish a few for Christmas, but to protect the nation’s treasury for generations to come.

President Marcos’ bold promise can be a turning point for his administration, but its fulfilment requires more than just political will.

It demands a scrupulous respect for due process, a visibly impartial application of the law, a commitment to transparency, and a dedication to systemic change.

The people’s trust will not be won by a single headline-grabbing statement, but by the quiet, consistent, and principled actions that will follow.

In keeping his word, the President must ensure that the process itself is beyond reproach, proving that in his administration, justice is neither delayed, denied, nor dictated — but delivered.