Follow the flood money
The country does not need another corruption drama with convenient villains. It needs a complete accounting.
Text size
The country does not need another corruption drama with convenient villains. It needs a complete accounting.
Twenty-six years of unyielding journalism is a milestone, and as one of the newest voices to join the DAILY TRIBUNE family, this anniversary feels both historic and personal. The paper has long chronicled the nation’s turning points with grit and fearlessness; my own journey here is just beginning.
In an era when media landscapes shift overnight, the TRIBUNE has endured by staying true to “Without Fear or Favor” while evolving for modern readers. Joining now feels less like filling a slot and more like boarding a moving train driven by purpose.
That tradition matters most when public issues are clouded by noise. Commentary must resist easy targets, follow uncomfortable evidence and insist that accountability should never be managed for political convenience.
That standard now confronts the flood control probe. The issue is no longer only ghost projects, substandard works, or missing public funds. It is whether investigators will follow the evidence to its source or let politics decide where the trail stops.
So far, noise has been louder than method. Hearings, briefings and partisan accusations have produced villains of the week. Yet one name keeps recurring in the accounts of witnesses, contractors, former officials, and even the controversial “maleta” boys: Zaldy Co.
That repetition is not a conviction. Co is entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence. But it demands an explanation: If the trail repeatedly places him near the operational center, why have the harshest accusations seemed to land elsewhere first?
This is where the legal doctrine of “master plunderer,” which acquitted former President Gloria Arroyo, must be used carefully. Philippine plunder law does not punish a headline. It punishes the amassing of ill-gotten wealth by a public officer, acting alone or with others, through a series of criminal acts. The question is not who is convenient to blame but who controlled, benefited from, or knowingly joined the scheme.
The discussion should therefore begin with acts, not labels: project identification, contractor participation, fund releases, implementation, inspection, certification, payment and alleged kickbacks. If those acts show Co’s influence through contractor networks and political access, investigators must build the case or explain why the evidence falls short.
The maleta boys make that task harder, not less urgent. Their accounts should not be accepted wholesale. Statements that shift or surface in charged settings must be tested under oath and checked against bank trails, project records and procurement files. Even unreliable witnesses can point to verifiable leads.
The same discipline should govern the Ombudsman’s posture. If plunder cases and state witness arrangements are pursued, the standards must be visible. Who is charged as a principal? Who is treated as a witness? What evidence separates them? Without clear answers, the probe risks looking less like impartial accountability and more like a managed narrative.
The reported treatment of former DPWH S ecretary Manuel Bonoan should be judged by that standard. If he is to be used as a state witness, the public deserves to know what indispensable testimony he can provide, why it cannot be obtained elsewhere and whether cooperation will include restitution if funds were allegedly stolen.
None of this spares Bonoan, Estrada, Escudero, or anyone else from scrutiny. Every credible allegation must be investigated. Accountability becomes suspect only when the state chooses targets first and completes the evidentiary trail later.
The government should therefore bring Co within Philippine jurisdiction, explain with evidence why some figures face the gravest accusations while Co appears to receive less scrutiny, and audit the older contractor trail because questionable flood control projects did not begin with one administration.
The country does not need another corruption drama with convenient villains. It needs a complete accounting. If the scandal is to mean anything beyond another season of accusations, investigators must stop chasing headlines and follow the flood money wherever the law and the evidence lead.
