Give them to the ombudsman

There is no quarrel with anti-corruption crusaders wanting to expose venalities of government people supposed to be serving the public. A crusader follows the truth wherever it leads. It reminded me of the vow made by Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson – “wherever the evidence leads” him during the Senate investigation into the alleged “ghost” flood control projects.

As then chairman of the Senate Blue Ribbon (SBR) committee until late last year, Lacson conducted “inquiry in aid of legislation” of suspicious transactions involving multimillion-peso worth of various flood control projects of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Actually, Lacson made this public avowal when he took over from Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, who lost his chairmanship of the SBR.

This was in the aftermath of the coup that ousted Senate president Francis “Chiz” Escudero in September last year. A new majority bloc emerged and installed Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III as Senate president.

The Marcoleta-led SBR investigation into the alleged “ghost” flood control projects was based on the privilege speech of Lacson who exposed the lurid details on how unscrupulous government functionaries dipped their greedy fingers into the flood control projects in the annual budgets of the DPWH. Fresh from his comeback bid at the Senate after the 2025 elections, Lacson denounced DPWH district engineers in Bulacan who were leading ostentatious lifestyles, including high-stakes playing in casinos.

Lacson’s exposé came a few weeks after the fourth State of the Nation Address (SONA) on July 28 last year of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM), who unburdened his extreme frustration over the shenanigans that went into the DPWH flood control projects. The President pointed to “kickbacks, the initiatives, the errata, the SOP for the boys” as the spoils taken away from the flood control projects in the first three years of his administration, divvied up by and among corrupt government officials.

Lacson subsequently lost the SBR chairmanship in yet another counter-coup. Then Senate minority leader Alan Peter Cayetano was installed to replace Sotto as new Senate president. But it was a short-lived Senate presidency for Cayetano. He served for only 23 days, from his election on May 11, 2026 until he fully conceded his disputed ouster to the new majority bloc.

Veteran lawmaker Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian was elected Senate president on June 17 which, up to now, is still being contested by the Cayetano bloc at the Senate. It was at this juncture that there was a palpable shift in the Senate investigations into the flood control projects. The SBR, now chaired by neophyte Sen. Erwin Tulfo, suddenly turned gun shy in its own inquiries.

An inquisitor already knows who he wants to find at the end of the investigation. And perhaps this is the question Lacson himself should ponder. After so many accusations, investigations and names dragged before the public, is he still following the evidence? Or has the pursuit itself become the purpose?

Methinks that should make the good senator even more uncomfortable.

There is a difference between a watchdog and something that simply keeps chasing whoever is pointed out to it. A watchdog knows what it is guarding. It knows the difference between an intruder and an innocent passerby. Most importantly, it knows who holds the leash.

When people begin wondering about that last question, the problem is no longer merely the noise coming from the watchdog. It is who the watchdog might bite next. This is where congressional investigation can dangerously cross the line between legitimate oversight and something resembling political inquisition.

We have seen this movie before. In another country and another generation, an American senator named Joseph McCarthy discovered the enormous political power contained in a very simple formula: announce that you have names, create suspicion around those names and allow the accusation itself to do what evidence could not.

Not everyone accused by McCarthy was innocent. That was precisely what made the method so effective. Mix enough legitimate targets with questionable ones and eventually the public finds it difficult to distinguish between the two.

After all, this is what the Senate does in aid of legislation. Senators investigate. They summon witnesses. They scrutinize government spending. And when billions of pesos in taxpayers’ money are involved, we should expect nothing less.

But lately, one cannot help asking: where is the ombudsman?

The Office of the Ombudsman, lest we forget, is the constitutional body mandated to investigate and prosecute public officials accused of wrongdoing. The Senate is not.

Neither does it strengthen the Office of the Ombudsman when the constitutional investigator of government wrongdoing appears reduced to following every trail first announced from the Senate floor or before television cameras. The ombudsman should follow evidence.

This distinction is important because accountability is not merely about catching bad people. It is about building institutions capable of determining who actually did something wrong. That requires evidence. Verification. Due process. And, perhaps most importantly, the willingness to investigate friend and foe alike.

Otherwise, what appears to be a crusade against corruption begins looking like something else.

Yet judging from the almost regular stream of names, allegations and supposed anomalies being aired publicly by Senators Lacson, Tulfo, et. al., one gets the impression that the constitutional order has somehow been reversed.

Put the innocent and the guilty together in the same firing line and eventually the guilty will discover the perfect defense: it’s nothing but politics – and eventually forgotten.

Why is it that so many of the personalities suddenly finding themselves under investigative spotlight also happen to be personalities who have crossed swords with, criticized or otherwise become inconvenient to the administration?

Coincidence? Perhaps. But politics teaches us to be suspicious of too many coincidences. Especially so when allegations are announced before they are conclusively established. But perhaps, there would be less reason to question this unusual arrangement if the anti-corruption crusaders were as indiscriminate as corruption itself.

The accused may eventually explain. Documents may subsequently show a different story. The ombudsman may find insufficient evidence to prosecute. But let’s give them to the ombudsman.