Groups seeking to uphold the dignity of the budget process have urged the “Floodgate” probers not to shoot the messenger but to focus instead on the content of the supposed Cabral files while determining their authenticity.
This after Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano said he would not engage further with Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste, the lawmaker who claimed to have the files in his possession.
“It’s a black hole, and I want to stay focused,” Clavano said.
The Cabral files that Leviste shared on his social media page included information on budget allocations for various infrastructure programs and a list of projects and the funds allocated to different legislative districts.
Clavano said soft copies of documents held by third parties inherently lose their evidentiary credibility as they are susceptible to alteration, incomplete context, or manipulation.
The files implicate several members of Congress and Executive branch officials in the insertion schemes in the yearly budget since 2023. The bloated Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA) served as the conduit for pet projects embedded in national agency budgets, while regular items were transferred to the UA.
Former deputy speaker Erin Tañada said questions were raised about how Leviste obtained the Cabral files, but it should not be outrightly dismissed, “because it can serve as a guide.”
The project lists can be cross-checked to verify their authenticity. Other documents could confirm this, as we can determine whether the listed projects were funded, Tañada said.
Funding from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) would be reflected in a paper trail. So for Tañada, the Cabral files cannot be set aside, even if they have not been authenticated.
“This issue should be resolved through a single, clear narrative because right now the narratives are competing,” Tañada said.
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) should release the official documents submitted to Congress as part of the budget, as well as the documents that eventually appeared in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2025, and the DBM records under the Office of the President, Tañada, who is now a budget activist, said.
“The probative value of what Congressman Leviste holds can be questioned because we don’t know whether the files were voluntarily given or forcibly taken. But what’s important here is that there is a list of projects. No one denies that. The question is are these projects included in the official roster of DPWH projects that the government should have funded?” he said.
“It’s really just a matter of matching. The next step is to determine whether funds were actually released,” Tañada added.
If all three match, he said then a particular entry is correct. “There were questions regarding certain personalities. For example, Leviste admitted he made a mistake when he initially said that Terry Ridon benefited from certain projects in 2025 when he was not yet a congressman.”
Not for pocketing
Bicol Saro Partylist Rep. Terry Ridon on Friday refuted the claim of Leviste that some congressmen received a P2-million bonus after the ratification of the Bicameral Conference Committee (Bicam) report.
According to Ridon, the “Christmas bonus” was one of Leviste’s “pattern of lies and falsities,” and the supposed bonus was for the maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE) of representatives.
“It is not true that there was a P2-million Christmas bonus. Funds are provided to the offices of members of Congress for the activities, programs, and tasks they perform. This means the funds are not intended to be pocketed or used for personal gain. It is included in the list of extraordinary miscellaneous expenses provided to the office. It does not go into the congressman’s wallet or purse,” Ridon explained.
He noted the MOOE was not new and had been in place since he became a lawmaker in 2013, but the amounts were not P2 million at the time.