Why process matters more than possession

In recent weeks, much of the public conversation has centered on who has the so-called “Cabral files,” who saw them first and who should release them. These questions, while understandable, miss the more important point. In matters involving public funds, allegations of corruption, and the integrity of institutions, possession is never as important as process.

The decision of the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a joint inspection of the subpoenaed digital files is not an exercise in delay or secrecy. It is an affirmation of a basic but often overlooked principle: truth must be established through procedure, not publicity.

Digital files are uniquely vulnerable. Unlike paper records, they can be copied endlessly, altered invisibly, or selectively disclosed without leaving obvious traces. In such a landscape, competing lists and leaked excerpts only deepen the confusion. What the public ultimately needs is not more versions of the same files, but one definitive, credible record — one that can withstand legal scrutiny and public doubt.

That is why the joint inspection matters. By involving multiple institutions with distinct roles — the Ombudsman as lead investigator and custodian, the Commission on Audit as independent validator, the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group as technical expert and DPWH as institutional participant — the process removes any single point of control. It replaces suspicion with structure and speculation with documentation.

Equally important is the insistence on preserving originals and working only on verified forensic copies. This may sound technical, even tedious, but it is precisely this discipline that protects the investigation from future attacks. When findings are eventually presented, they will not rest on claims or personalities, but on an unbroken chain of custody, verified hash values and recorded procedures. That is how accountability is made durable.

Some will argue that the public deserves immediate disclosure. Transparency is indeed a constitutional value, but it is not served by haste that compromises integrity. Transparency without verification is not accountability — it is noise. The public interest is best protected when institutions take the time to do things properly, especially when the stakes involve billions in public funds and the credibility of governance itself.

In the end, the joint inspection sends a clear message: no shortcuts, no selective evidence, no competing truths. Only one record will matter — the one established directly from the source, preserved correctly and examined jointly.

That is not an evasion of accountability. It is accountability done right.