Budget records matter. They show who pushed for funding and where public money was directed. But a budget entry alone does not prove corruption. It does not establish that a project was rigged, poorly built, falsely certified, or used for kickbacks. A budget merely authorizes spending. The real question is: what happened after the money was released?
The investigation should begin with the project itself.
Does the flood control structure exist at the approved site? Does it match the approved plans, quantities, materials, and engineering specifications? Who won the contract? Who inspected the work, certified its completion, accepted delivery, and approved payment? Which contractor received the funds, and where did the money go afterward?
This project-first approach is also fairer. Congress appropriates the funds, but executive agencies release the money, implement the projects, inspect the works, and process the payments. Lawmakers should not be shielded when the evidence points to procurement interference, kickbacks, or contractor control. But neither should a district allocation automatically be treated as proof of theft.
Accountability must rest on evidence, not political shorthand.
The confusion surrounding current probes shows why. Public reports have cited hundreds of alleged ghost projects, while justice officials have been more cautious in identifying cases ready for prosecution. That gap is not a technicality; it is the difference between a headline and a conviction.
Ghost projects should be the government’s first priority because they are the easiest to prove. If a taxpayer-funded project does not exist where it should, investigators can trace the implementing office, contractor, certifications, disbursements and the officials who authorized payment. Substandard projects deserve equal scrutiny, but they usually require more technical examinations and assessments.
The same standard should apply to everyone — lawmakers, agency officials, contractors, and members of the Executive branch. If a former official becomes a state witness, their cooperation may help prosecutors explain a scheme, but it should not erase the public’s right to know what that official approved, tolerated, or failed to prevent.
That same principle should govern the scrutiny of former Speaker Martin Romualdez and former Ako Bicol Representative Zaldy Co, whose names have repeatedly surfaced in probes of flood control spending. Their influence in the budget process and alleged links to contractors are legitimate subjects of inquiry. But they should be judged according to the same project-based standard applied to everyone else.
The case of Romualdez underscores the point. Allegations that he orchestrated a nationwide flood control scheme will rise above political speculation only if investigators can identify the specific projects involved, the contractors who benefited, the officials who approved them, the payments that were released, and any proceeds that directly connect him to the alleged scheme.
Where evidence exists, charges should be filed. Where it does not, political rivalry, public suspicion, or participation in budget deliberations cannot substitute for proof. To date, no ghost or substandard flood control project in Tacloban City or Leyte’s 1st District has been publicly identified or officially linked to Romualdez.
The rule should be simple: Start with the projects, follow the money, and apply the same standard to every faction.
When Congress resumes its hearings, the central question should no longer be who inserted what into the budget. The more important question is harder to evade: Which projects were fake or defective? Who signed off on them? Who got paid? Who benefited?
Until investigators follow the projects first and the money next, they risk barking up the wrong tree while flooded communities continue to wait for justice.
