WHOM to believe, which story will the public accept? First, it was the problem of the investigators’ conflict of interest. Senators and House members allegedly among the looters. Would participants of the crime not protect themselves and their colleagues not help them to save the institution as well?
Now it’s the “incongruity” of this: The President -- Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. who had been touted repeatedly as initiator of the inquiries -- was just identified by former congressman Zaldy Co, alleged principal thief, as beneficiary of the loot, along with ormer House speaker Martin Romualdez.
Since the flood control funds scandal broke out, the problem has been of credibility. Public persons in government and private sector who are dealing with the crisis are suspects in the looting or have interest to cover it up.
THE Independent Commission for Infrastruction (ICI) has been hounded with the distrust of a public that cannot see a body created by the President doing its job independently.
The skepticism increased when Zaldy Co, accused chief implementer of the fraud, has come out to identify and point to the President and the former speaker as beneficiaries, if not participants.
As to DPWH assessing whether the projects were substandard or nonexistent as ghosts, how can the public accept its findings when some of these people could be the same engineers and technicians who reviewed and certified them?
ESTIMATES vary but Department of Finance said the economy lost about P118.5 billion or US$2 billion due to corruption in flood control projects from 2023 to 2025, basing on accounts that 25 percent to 70 percent of the project costs were pilfered by corruption. Greenpeace Philippines estimated the corruption take at P173 billion.
Descriptions of the heist have ranged from “huge” and “massive,” to “large-scale,”
“behemoth” and “humongous.”
Without using firearms, bombs or dynamites. By just perverting the process of appropriation in Congress by, ah, insertions, which some male legislators can joke about with sexual nuance.
THE persons investigating may themselves be involved in the crime. There are senators and congressmen and congresswomen accused publicly of sharing in the proceeds of the fraud.
The stealing was systematic, requiring the participation of legislators in the Senate and the House of Representatives, accomplished by plotting and manipulating, in a conspiracy and heist well-planned and skillfully executed.
How could they get at the truth? The hearings so far made a show of purportedly good intentions. They fumbled, faltered and paused when they neared “sacred and sensitive” areas of the inquiry.
Investigators protecting or seen to be covering up the perps cannot be expected to help nail the culprits.
THE Zaldy Co in the video may not even be the former congressman who headed the bicam that allowed those insertions. He could be artificial intelligence: Have the NBI investigate
the video.
And his statement is not sworn to. Or so ran the Malacañang response to Co’s accusation.
Yet Co would be a logical person to verify and test the charges raised for far. He was in it, self-confessed implementer of the fraud.
We may laugh off his claim he didn’t receive any money. But his linking of the President and the speaker to the scandal could not just be dismissed by bashing Co. He should be made to make his charge under oath and prove it with evidence.