[] Given all the sleaze that has been exposed in congressional hearings about public works funds, the Cebu Eleven, in the public eye, are under heavy suspicion they pocketed kickback money.
[] Formally indicted or not, each lawmaker is duty-bound to show that projects in his/her district were completed per contracted standards.
[1] THEY'RE PRESUMABLY INNOCENT BUT... The 11 members of the Representatives from Cebu, like any other person accused or suspected of a crime, are presumed innocent.
Not one of them has been charged in court, although two are reported/rumored to be arrested and jailed soon.
Still, suspicion over the looting of public works funds has been so heavy that it's equivalent to or worse than being formally indicted.
Disclosures at the congressional hearings brought to the public mind images of massive looting, with cash not in envelopes but in huge travel bags and suitcases.
Along with revelations about the system in the fraud and the mode of sharing, this: how much percent went to the legislator, DPWH officials, and executives in other agencies that made the thievery possible.
It told the nation that DPWH could withdraw money from banks in hundreds of million pesos and deliver them in luggage to their beneficiaries, mostly House and Senate members and some executives.
There's yet no proof of any Cebuano legislator having received any of that money. A PCIJ (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism) report, released November 29, 2025, says billions in DPWH funds operate as "a new form of pork barrel."
And 11 of them from Cebu are among the recipients.
[2] THEY HAVE REASONS NOT TO SPEAK OUT. Foremost is the right against self-incrimination. Talking about the projects and the funds might disclose information that would implicate them more, if they were linked already.
Speaking out wouldn't help them get off the scandal, if they were guilty. It wouldn't make them look clean, even if they were, amid the slime thrown at the legislators. Denials can do little when the public is convinced they did it.
One Cebu congressman tried to do it indirectly. Representative Vincent Franco "Duke" Frasco of Cebu's 5th congressional district announced last September 5, 2025 a P500,00 reward for information on "ghost" or substandard flood control projects in that district. It could look like a ruse, now that people see his name in the Cebu Eleven list.
Thus general response from Cebu's representatives has been silence, a shattering quietude amid the noise over public cash pilfered from public works funds amounting to more than a trillion pesos.
[3] WHAT COULD DO ONE IN. One or two things could elevate suspicion to a formal indictment:
-- Evidence by oral testimony, paper work or money trail that the legislator benefited from the misspent funds, and/or
-- Evidence that the projects were substandard or "ghost" or non-existent.
[4] DEFENSE OF 'WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.' Some defenses heard from lawmakers, not from Cebu, included this favorite refuge: "It's all DPWH. I have had no part in it."
The system of "allocable funds" though is that it's a share or quota of the congressman or congresswoman for his/her district. The lawmaker is informed about it and it doesn't proceed without the go-signal from the said lawmaker, including the project and contractor of choice.
If that would all be left to DPHW, sharing of "proceeds" would still be done, delivery of the percentage and all.
If the legislator rejects it, the district doesn't get the project. Or so the congressional hearings disclosed.
As to the "non-allocable," the lawmaker doesn't have a say in it but since it would obviously benefit the district, it would be hard to reject it (none from Cebu apparently did). The district representative agrees about the "parking" by a colleague from another district and the practice, as alleged in the congressional hearings, provides additional concession: a percentage of the booty.
It would seem that the defense of "had nothing to do with it" may stand only if the lawmaker totally rejected the project and didn't accept any share of the cash.
[5] LOOTING IS SYSTEMATIC, REQUIRES CONNIVANCE. The manner of pilfering the enormous amounts of cash had required the collusion of the various agencies in the legislative and executive branches.
Paper work, approval of authorities and chief regulators, flow of cash: all that requiring cooperation in the commission of the crime and acquisition of benefits.
[6] LEGISLATOR'S OVERSIGHT FUNCTION. Whether the congressman or congresswoman directly participated in the appropriation for or insertion of the project in the district, he/she has the duty to oversee that the project is done and done according to the specified standards.
The duty binds him/her to oversee the work, directly or with the help of local officials and constituents, especially with the bad experience of LGUs in national projects funded by pork barrel.
If the project turns out to be "haosiao" -- substandard or "ghost" -- the district congressman or congressman should be among the first to know and call it out.
The lawmaker's silence about any wrongdoing involving a national project in his/her district is unavoidably interpreted as being complicit in the cheating.
[7] THEY MAY GO SCOT-FREE ON THIS ONE. They may dodge prosecution and punishment but there's still the consequence of being rejected in the next election.
Many people don't pin much hope on that though. Repeaters have acquired the skill and resources in not being struck out.