The reported death of Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Undersecretary Catalina Cabral has cast a long and troubling shadow over an already controversial chapter in public governance. Incidentally, this writer had just passed by Kennon Road en route to Baguio, and could not help but feel sorry for her and the family she left behind.

While the nation properly pauses to commiserate with her family and loved ones, the government cannot afford to treat this tragedy as a purely private matter. When a senior public official, allegedly linked to highly contentious flood control projects, dies under circumstances publicly described as an apparent suicide, transparency ceases to be optional — it becomes a constitutional and moral imperative.

Public office is a public trust. This oft-repeated principle in our Constitution is not suspended by tragedy. On the contrary, it demands even greater vigilance. The sheer scale of the flood control controversy, involving billions in public funds and widespread allegations of misuse, compels authorities to be clear, specific, and credible in explaining the circumstances surrounding Undersecretary Cabral’s death. Silence, vagueness, or perfunctory disclosures only deepen public suspicion and erode confidence in institutions already under strain.

From a legal standpoint, Cabral’s death carries concrete consequences for ongoing investigations and potential prosecutions. Criminal liability, under Philippine law, is extinguished by death prior to final judgment. Thus, any personal criminal responsibility that may have been attributed to her can no longer be adjudicated in court. Civil liability ex delicto, however, may survive and be pursued against her estate, subject to the Rules of Court. Administrative cases, for their part, are generally rendered moot upon death, absent a clear statutory directive to the contrary.

More complex is the evidentiary impact. Undersecretary Cabral reportedly possessed expert knowledge and firsthand familiarity with the planning, approval, and implementation of flood control projects now under scrutiny. Her absence means that potential testimony, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, can no longer be directly obtained. Yet the law does not allow the truth to die with a witness. Her knowledge may be replaced or corroborated through other means, such as the testimonies of co-officials and subordinates, records of meetings, memoranda, project documents, audit reports, digital communications, and procurement files. Documentary evidence, after all, speaks louder and more reliably than memory.

This is why the State must now double down on safeguarding other witnesses and custodians of information. Witness protection is not merely about physical security; it includes psychological support, institutional assurances, and a clear message that telling the truth will not come at the cost of one’s life or dignity. Failure to do so risks further tragedies, and with them, further delays in uncovering the truth.

Quo vadis, government? Transparency, accountability, and the protection of witnesses are not obstacles to justice. They are its very foundations.