Senate Blue Ribbon Committee chairperson Panfilo Lacson on Wednesday downplayed the so-called “minority report” released by Senators Rodante Marcoleta and Imee Marcos questioning the panel’s ongoing probe into the alleged flood control scam, calling it “useless” and fit only for the “trash.”

“What do I do with that? It's [useless]. That's not in the rules; it's not in accordance with the rules,” Lacson said in Filipino in an interview. “There is no other place for that 'minority report' but the trash bin.”

Senate President Tito Sotto also dismissed the report, describing it as a mere media stunt.

Lacson’s remarks came in response to the observations and recommendations contained in the report issued by minority senators against the committee’s ongoing investigation into the alleged large-scale corruption in flood control projects, now being led by Lacson.

The 576-page report was signed by six of the nine minority senators and was released to the media on Tuesday by Marcoleta, Lacson’s predecessor as committee chair, and Marcos.

Only Senators Francis Escudero, Alan Peter Cayetano, and Joel Villanueva did not sign the report despite being members of the minority bloc.

Among others, the report called for the prosecution of high-ranking officials and lawmakers allegedly linked to the flood control scheme, including former House speaker Martin Romualdez, on criminal charges such as plunder and graft.

During the presentation of the report’s summary on Tuesday, Marcoleta and Marcos expressed dissatisfaction with Lacson’s handling of the probe since he assumed leadership of the committee last year.

They claimed the committee failed to prioritize identifying the alleged masterminds of the scheme and instead focused on grilling officials and personnel of the Department of Public Works and Highways and private contractors, whom they described as “small fish.”

They further insinuated that Lacson was deliberately ignoring “critical leads” that could allegedly implicate Romualdez.

Marcoleta specifically criticized Lacson for allegedly failing to fully examine the testimonies of two witnesses, who testified under the pseudonyms Joy and Maria, regarding Romualdez’s alleged ownership of a property on Tamarind Road in South Forbes Park.

Lacson earlier said during a committee hearing that the testimonies were still insufficient to implicate Romualdez in the alleged anomalies, although he noted that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman could use them as investigative leads.

Lacson hits back

Responding to the minority report, Lacson said it was a “disrespect” to the committee, stressing that such a report was never provided for under Senate rules.

He said minority members could introduce amendments to the committee report once it is finalized and adopted on the Senate floor, but issuing a separate report was unnecessary and improper.

“Is that not a show of disrespect?" he said. “It is not wrong to criticize, but it should be constructive, and not meant to undermine the committee.”

Lacson also accused Marcoleta and Marcos of “nitpicking” the committee hearings instead of contributing constructively and presenting the evidence they claim exists.

“For some to belittle it, that is an insult to the entire Senate," he said.

He also rejected claims that the investigation had stalled, saying the hearings had already contributed to the filing of cases against several individuals now facing charges in court.

Senator Risa Hontiveros, a member of the majority, said she remains confident in Lacson’s ability to “substantively address any issues related to the conduct of hearings.”

The minority report also urged that 17 other House members, aside from Romualdez, who were tagged by contractor Curlee Discaya in the alleged kickback scheme, be investigated.

It said Romualdez and the other lawmakers cited in the allegations should not be automatically absolved and must be subjected to scrutiny.

However, the report noted that similar allegations involving Escudero and Senator Jinggoy Estrada were “unsubstantiated” and “unclear” without strong and corroborated evidence.