Mr. President, esteemed colleagues:
“Where there’s a will, there’s a way”. This 400-year-old proverb applies to everyone, bar none.
Since getting the required majority signatures for this representation to be able to report out on the floor, your BRC’s Partial Committee Report on the flood control saga seems doomed from the time we first routed the same last February 11, 2026, I am compelled to stand before you on a matter of personal and collective privilege, and for good reasons.
As we speak, the country’s heat index is at its peak — but the Filipinos’ anger burns hotter.
Gaano man katindi ang sikat ng araw, hindi nito matatabunan ang galit ng ating mga kababayan na nalulunod pa rin sa gitna ng kapabayaan at kasakiman sa salapi ng ilang tiwaling opisyal ng gobyerno, sampu ng kanilang mga kasapakat na kontratista dulot ng flood control scam.
Sa Barangay Mercado sa bayan ng Hagonoy, Bulacan, ang baha ay bahagi na ng buhay. Wala nang ginawa ang mga estudyanteng pumapasok sa eskwela, mga namamalakayang pumapalaot, at manggagawang araw-araw kumakayod kundi lumusong at maabala sa hindi masawatang baha.
Sabi nga ng isang residente doon: ‘Kung pinag-aralan lamang ang pinaggagagawa nila, hindi kami magdurusa tulad nito. Sawang-sawa na kami. Habang sila ay nakahiga sa kama, kami ay nakahiga sa tubig-baha.’
Sa kasamaang palad, magpapatuloy pa rin ang siklo ng paglilimas, paglusong, at pagbubuwis ng buhay at kabuhayan ng mga taga-Barangay Mercado tuwing sasapit ang tag-ulan.
Mr. President, Filipino families in more than 30 provinces with high and medium-high exposure to flooding across the country are sure to be flooded in months to come, at risk of losing their livelihoods and lives.
Our country stands to lose about 89 billion US dollars between 2022 and 2050 due to floods and tropical storms.
Again, as we speak, the Philippines remains at the top of the World Risk Index 2025 among 193 countries worldwide as the most disaster-prone country due to high exposure to floods, typhoons, and other natural hazards.
These are only some of the reasons why I must speak today.
Mr. President, while the Partial Committee Report — circulated to the committee members nearly three months ago — remains pending for sponsorship, I cannot ignore the public’s urgent demand for transparency regarding the Flood Control Scandal. Therefore, as Chairman of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, I rise today to deliver the Chairman’s Progress Report.
This Progress Report contains the findings of the partial report, which is grounded, but not limited to the seven (7) exhaustive public hearings in aid of legislation, conducted by your Committee, on what stands as the largest corruption scandal in Philippine history. This also touches on the proceedings of the 8th and latest hearing and on other key matters of urgent concern to the succeeding public inquiries.
Again, for the record, the Partial Committee Report was circulated on February 11, 2026, to the members of this Committee for thorough study and consideration.
As provided in our Rules (Section 1, Article 5, BRC Rules), Committee reports must be signed by a majority of the Committee’s members before they can be filed with the Bills and Index Division of the Senate.
Given the scale of the investigation and the details of the discussion, which, as you all know, reached more than 400 pages, sans the annexes, each member has been afforded more than sufficient time to examine and scrutinize the full substance of the report. Everyone is given a full opportunity to review and propose revisions, modifications, deletions, and corrections.
In line with Senate practice, we have provided an advance PDF copy to every office to allow members sufficient time for review.
Common sense lang sa isa nating kasamahan na pilit na naghahanap ng original signed copy at ginawa pang dahilan sa hindi niya pagpirma. It should be understood that the digital version serves as the formal notification of the report’s contents, Mr. President.
To date, almost three (3) months have passed, only seven (7), including the present Chairperson and the Senate President, have affixed our signatures to this draft. I therefore thank our colleagues – Sen Erwin Tulfo, our Vice Chairman, Sen RIsa Hontiveros, Sen Bam Aquino, Sen Kiko Pangilinan and, the latest – Sen Raffy Tulfo – who had signed the Partial Committee Report – and while I disagree with those who have not, let me state for the record Mr. President that I respect their decision even as I understand whatever reasons they have for not signing. Bottom line – it is their right as Senators of the Republic.
Nonetheless, it bears heavy emphasis: most of the findings of the partial committee report are no longer new and first view — they have already been validated, if not overtaken by current events.
In fact, while the report may be pending, the wheels of justice have already begun to grind, and I take pride in saying, in line with the direction of our report.
Mr. President, the Blue Ribbon Committee is a heavy cross to bear, where every move is scrutinized, and every intention is questioned. But we soldier on and forge ahead.
In my more than 50 years of public service, I cannot recall experiencing a situation where I am in now – a zero sum outcome whichever path I trek in the crafting of the partial committee report.
Never mind the trolls and critics who have been operating like clockwork. To them, I say — I have built my career and my reputation over decades on a simple principle: that noise never overpowers duty, and intimidation never silences me.
Set aside, if they must, the fact that I have spent my entire public service career, refusing and resisting all forms of corruption – from rejecting bribes from illegal gambling operations and other unlawful activities during my law enforcement years, let alone the ‘pork barrel’ system which plundered our nation and was later declared by the highest court as unconstitutional – not to mention my consistent rejection of lobby monies in as many instances related to certain pieces of legislation.
Disregard, if they can, the decades I have spent in the trenches as a budget watchdog and a relentless buster of abuse of power.
If my track record of integrity is to be ignored today, then let the evidence speak where my history is silenced by the critics and the trolls.
In the course of drafting this report, my guidance to my staff was unequivocal: that we adopt a single standard in laying down the Committee’s findings– we go where the evidence leads us.
Before we dive into the findings, let us be very clear, in plain, simple terms: We are not here to indict, much less convict or hand down a final judgment. Hindi po ito isang hatol. Rather, we are establishing a standard of “clear indicia”, as lawyers call it, to assist in whatever way we can – the proper authorities who shall independently evaluate these findings, determine probable cause, and take the necessary legal actions.
Halimbawa sa kaso ng ating kasamahan na si Sen. Jinggoy Estrada ay may bagong development na naganap sa pamamagitan ng LBRMO na nagpahayag na hindi si Sen. Jinggoy ang proponent base sa record ng mga proyektong unang naiugnay sa kanya. Nonetheless, Mr. President, let me be uncompromising: In this long course of inquiry, the Filipino taxpayers are the “complainant.” Our duty to them is to answer three fundamental questions: 1. Where did the money go? 2. How was this corruption executed? 3. How do we fix the system so it never happens again?
Mr. President, this all seems like deja vu. We have seen this before: the history of corruption in the Philippines reflects a cyclical process; it does not disappear when exposed, it adapts and mutates to survive. The flood control crisis is the reincarnation of the 2013 Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam, but in a bolder scheme. It serves as a scathing indictment of the failure of our institutions to deter corrupt machinations. The enterprise remains unchanged in essence, similarly orchestrated by a cabal of officials led by legislators and their co-conspirators within the government and in the private sector, only with a diversified format and modus of thievery, timing, and language.
Like floodwaters, these activities seep into institutions and areas of least resistance, flowing into and exploiting new channels where illicit rewards abound and oversight is weakest.
Mula sa masalimuot na imbestigasyon, inilatag ko ang synthesis ng FINDINGS ng Komite sa limang (5) bahagi:
Una—Napatunayan sa mga pagdinig na ang problema sa baha ay hindi nag-ugat sa kakulangan ng pondo. Instead, the scale of funding, coupled with weak internal controls and criminally complicit oversight, made the sector an attractive target for systematic plunder of the public treasury, effectively leaving our citizens exposed to a deluge of misery. Ito ang nilalaman ng Part I ng ating findings.
Second—The anatomy of this flood-control anomaly is inherently parasitic, characterized by a network of actors spanning the highest levels of authority. Hence, Part II of the findings clearly laid out how the anatomy works — from utilizing an institutionalized workflow deeply entrenched within the bureaucracy, employing mechanisms so brazen and gross that they either compromise, recruit, and/or bypass oversight.
Third — Ang flood control mess ay representasyon ng sukdulan at nakakarimarim na evolution of the pork barrel system. In this scheme, corruption takes different forms and names: from congressional “slabs of pork” now euphemistically rebranded as “allocables,” “leadership funds,” and “insertions”—extending their reach even into the Unprogrammed Appropriations under the GAA. Part III details the scheme’s stark similarities to that of the pork barrel scam, from language to operations.
Fourth— The case of Bulacan 1st District Engineering Office serves as a microcosm of this systemic rot. It provides a blueprint for how flood control funds are diverted, revealing the interconnected systems that facilitate the corruption.
Fifth and finally, the dire consequences of this institutionalized plunder are not merely financial; they are felt in the structural erosion of our democratic institutions, the profound disenfranchisement of the Filipino people, and the tearing of the moral fiber of the country.
Now we ask: Where did the money go?
Evidence on record shows how the flood control corruption scandal exposed a systemic, coordinated multi-actor process — isang malawakang sabwatan na ginawang gatasan ang mga proyekto para sa flood control. Ang pattern ng korapsyon ay systemic and parasitic, magkakaugnay – mula sa mga aktor, mekanismo at workflow.
Who are the actors? In the course of the hearings, we have identified key actors who were implicated in the flood control anomalies and classified them into eight (8) groups.
Ang partisipasyon ng mga aktor na ito ay hindi limitado sa isang grupo lamang. Sila ay maaring gumalaw sa iba’t ibang kapasidad—sabay-sabay o nagpapalit-palit— depende sa pangangailangan ng kanilang operasyon.
– Nariyan ang mga Proponents – mga opisyal ng gobyerno na kinikilalang “may-ari” ng proyekto at tumatanggap ng average na 15-30% na kickbacks;
– Mga bagmen o intermediaries, sinasabing authorized representatives and emissaries of the proponents
– DPWH facilitators and coordinators, mga senior level officials who coordinated with proponents, facilitated their respective project proposals, accepted their demand for commitments, and other activities related to the flood control anomaly process;
– DPWH Group – syndicate groups implementing the project tulad ng Bulacan 1st DEO at Oriental Mindoro DEO.
– Itinuturing ding active actors ang mga contractors — sila ang namumudmod ng “commitments” o suhol sa mga proponents at iba’t-ibang grupo na kasabwat sa anomalya. Madalas, sila ay nagbibigay rin ng advances bago pa man ma-award ang project. Hindi nga ba namangha tayong lahat nang matuklasan natin sa isang pagdinig ang pahayag ni Sally Santos ng SYMS Construction na magkasunod siyang nag-withdraw noong Marso at Abril 2025 sa isang LandBank branch sa Bulacan ng tig-P457 milyong cash na kanyang ibinigay kay Brice Hernandez at mga kasabwat nito sa Ist Bulacan DEO?
– Ang iba pang mga aktor ay kabilang sa Executive branch; Bankers, at Constitutional oversight group.
These actors thrive in the vulnerability of our systems and institutions.
How was this corruption executed?
Himay-himay natin ang mga teknikal na paraan kung paano ninakaw ang pera ng bayan. These are the specific mechanisms of corruption — ang mga makinaryang ginamit para pabilisin ang pagnanakaw at pahinain ang ating sistema. Nariyan ang ugat ng problema: Ang proponent system. Meron pang Mandatory Fixed-Percentage Commissions, Kickbacks Paid in Cash, Rigged Bidding & Favored Suppliers, at In-House Contracting — ilan lamang ito sa mga sistema ng flood control scam.
This corrupt system exploited the very foundations of our fiscal governance through its institutionalized workflow. Mula sa Budget Formulation at Authorization kung saan sinisimulan ang pagmamanipula; Procurement & Implementation: Kung saan ang mga kontrata ay ibinibigay sa mga kasabwat sa nakawan, hanggang sa Oversight phase kung saan nagmimistulang pikit-mata sa katiwalian ang mga opisyal ng gobyerno na dapat ay sumusubaybay at nagmo-monitor sa mga proyekto.
This scheme exploited systemic and institutional weaknesses in budget formulation, authorization, implementation, and oversight. Testimonies and documents reveal that a wide range of public officials, from legislators to frontline officials, as well as private sector co-conspirators, were complicit in various ways, either by approving dubious projects, signing off on “ghost projects,” or failing to enforce procurement and performance standards and accountability safeguards.
Mr. President, how do we fix the system so it never happens again?
Ang pinakamahalagang bahagi ng report ng Komite ay ang mga reporma sa sistema, batas at proseso sa pamamagitan ng legislative proposals.
We focus on two pillars:
First, budget-related proposals. Tanggalin ang anumang uri ng “Allocables” and “Leadership Funds” na pinauso ng DPWH upang mapaghati-hatian ang pondo. This is a pork barrel incarnate and it clouds our fiscal transparency.
We also suggest itemizing Unprogrammed Appropriations, strict compliance with the release of unprogrammed funds, and public disclosure of excess revenue certifications for the use and release of unprogrammed appropriations. Given the massive scale of controversies, particularly under the 2024 appropriations, we may also consider abolishing the Unprogrammed Funds altogether.
We are also calling for the vertical and horizontal convergence of infrastructure planning across government agencies, both at the national and local levels and—crucially—enhanced public participation and legislative transparency.
Second, our Accountability and Anti-Corruption Proposals:
Primary to this is the Amendment of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), which includes:
a) Creation of an Anti-Corruption Law Enforcement Service in the Office of the Ombudsman and Providing Incentives and Protection to Whistleblowers;
b) Expanding the authority of the Ombudsman to deputize private lawyers as special investigators or prosecutors, and
c) Fiscal Autonomy Laws for the Office of the Ombudsman and Commission on Audit.
This is in line with the precedent of giving fiscal autonomy to the Supreme Court as provided under R.A. 12233 or the Judiciary Fiscal Autonomy Act. We won’t allow another fiscal intimidation faced by COA in 2020 when its appropriations were held hostage as “For-Later-Release” (FLR).
For too long, our laws had more holes than a sieve. We are here to plug them.
Ang ating sagot sa mga cong-tractors: We will define Beneficial Ownership and Conflict of Interest so that no legislator can hide behind a corporate veil.
We will also push for a law defining and penalizing the crime of infrastructure fraud and bid-rigging in the award of public infrastructure contracts.
We also propose authorizing the Ombudsman and the SOJ to issue Hold Departure Orders for those involved in large-scale corruption. No more fleeing before justice is served.
We likewise propose a strict prohibition and higher penalties against government employees gambling in casinos. Titiyakin natin na wala ng BGC boys na magwawaldas ng limpak-limpak na salapi para linisin o i-launder sa casino.
As a measure of accountability, we will pass a law for the digitalization of SALN/PDS and a law for the comprehensive whistleblower protection measure to strengthen oversight of government projects.
On accountability: we observed that state auditors are physically based in the agencies they audit and receive substantial perks from those agencies, such as office space, supplies, personnel, and cash gifts, among others. These arrangements create familiarity, which limits our state auditors’ ability to conduct a legitimate audit and, in many cases, creates conflicts of interest.
Hence, we are proposing a law that will facilitate and support the withdrawal of COA auditors and their recall to the central home office from their auditee agencies to ensure independent and accountable reporting.
We also propose a law to provide for a citizens’ remedy and means for redress and compensation, similar to a taxpayer or a class action suit, for citizens, group of citizens, or a community who may have been prejudiced or injured by defective, substandard, or inadequate public infrastructure.
Mr. President, these legislative reforms seek to dismantle the very anatomy of the flood control scam — paralyzing corrupt actors, overhauling broken mechanisms, and severing the workflows that feed this systemic greed.
Ito po sana ang legislative output ng Komite na sa ngayon ay hindi pa natin mai-file. This is why we await our colleagues’ signatures—a necessary step to move these reforms forward.
Mr. President, in the proposed Partial Committee Report, we recommended that several lawmakers be subjected to preliminary investigation, as the evidence points to that course of action. That said, we acknowledge that the passage of time since the preparation of the report has overtaken certain aspects of these recommendations.
This does not weaken the report. On the contrary, subsequent developments have reinforced our core findings:
As of January this year, four (4) key individuals who appeared before the Blue Ribbon hearings were admitted to the Witness Protection Program. These witnesses include former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, former District Engineer Henry Alcantara, former NCR Regional Director Gerard Opulencia, and contractor Sally Santos.
The executive branch has ordered a comprehensive review of flood control programs nationwide, including the creation of inter-agency task forces, stricter validation protocols for infrastructure projects, and enhanced transparency measures in public works spending.
The Office of the Ombudsman has filed multiple criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan against former and incumbent public officials, contractors, and private individuals in connection with alleged anomalous flood control projects, particularly in Bulacan and Oriental Mindoro. The charges include violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well as malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents under the Revised Penal Code.
Parallel investigations by the Department of Justice led to the creation of special panels of prosecutors tasked to handle at least five (5) ghost flood control projects in Bulacan, with prosecutors recommending the filing of graft, malversation, perjury, and falsification charges after evaluating affidavits, audit findings, and sworn testimonies of engineers and whistleblowers. Several of these cases have already been submitted for resolution, while others remain under preliminary investigation.
Proceedings are now underway before the Sandiganbayan, which has begun issuing orders on preliminary matters.
The NBI has conducted fact-finding operations and case build-up that led to the filing of complaints against respondents linked to the flood control scheme.
The Anti-Money Laundering Council complemented these efforts by initiating financial intelligence investigations. It has secured multiple freeze orders from the Court of Appeals, with over PHP 21.8 billion in assets frozen as of April 30, 2026, linked to irregularities in flood control projects. It has also preserved a total of P2.5 billion worth of assets and filed 14 petitions for civil forfeiture. Freeze orders have been issued against numerous individuals, including former Speaker Martin Romualdez, business associates, and corporations.
Sa tagal na mai-report out, nangyayari na po ang mga rekomendasyon at findings ng Komite.
Now, Mr. President, ako naman ang dinidiin ng mga kritiko. Taliwas sa paulit-ulit na naratibo na ayaw ko daw imbitahan si Congressman Romualdez – uulitin ko po – pormal na inimbitahan ng Komite ang dating Speaker.
The Committee extended invitations to Representative Romualdez and other members of the House of Representatives whose names were mentioned during the hearings through the Office of the current Speaker, in keeping with the established inter-chamber courtesy. These invitations were declined, with the exception of Representatives Toby Tiangco and Leandro Leviste, who voluntarily appeared before the Committee.
It must be emphasized that no Member of Congress has ever been subjected to a subpoena by either Chamber. Such an act would risk undermining the balance and mutual respect that define bicameral relations.
Suppose we follow such ludicrous suggestion made by one of our colleagues – ang mangyayari – si dating Speaker Romualdez ang magiging kauna-unahang kaso na sasalungat sa umiiral na interparliamentary courtesy. Ngayon, kung mayroon namang kapwa nating senador na iimbitahan o isu-subpoena sa pagdinig sa Kamara: Halimbawa, ma-isyuhan ng imbitasyon o subpoena ng ating kasama na si Senator Marcoleta ng House Committee on Justice, if hypothetically, mayroong imbestigasyon sa Kamara ukol sa kanyang diumano’y maanomalyang Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE). Handa po ba ang liderato ng Senado at si Senator Marcoleta na balewalain ang interparliamentary courtesy na umiiral mula’t sapol sa Kongreso?
Maalala natin noong Hunyo 2024, inimbitahan ng Kamara si Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa sa pagdinig kaugnay ng “war on drugs.” Gayunpaman, hindi siya dumalo sa payo na rin ni dating Senate President Chiz Escudero bilang pagpapahalaga sa inter-chamber courtesy.
That is why I always emphasize that this is not merely a matter of practice—it is grounded in principle. In his separate opinion in Francisco vs. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003), Justice Dante Tinga explained:
While inter-chamber courtesy is not a principle which has attained the level of a statutory command, it enjoys a high degree of obeisance among the members of the legislature, ensuring as it does the smooth flow of the legislative process.
In light of this, the continued observance of inter-chamber courtesy is not optional, Mr. President — it is essential to preserving the independence, integrity, and proper functioning of each Chamber.
May mga indibidwal rin na pilit na nagpapakalat ng maling impormasyon na diumano’y pinipigilan naming pagsalitain si former Congressman Zaldy Co. Nais ko pong linawin Mr. President and distinguished colleagues, na inimbitahan ng komite at inisyuhan pa nga ng show cause order at subpoena si Mr. Zaldy Co.
May nagmamagaling pa na dapat daw ay hayaan si Mr. Zaldy Co na maglabas ng apostilled affidavit o lumahok sa pamamagitan ng Zoom meeting. Si Ginoong Zaldy Co ay hindi nagpapadala ng anumang request sa Komite para humiling ng accommodation para sa isang virtual meeting mula sa loob ng Philippine Embassy.
Sa katunayan, ako pa nga ang unang nagmungkahi na maaring pag-aralan ang posibilidad na magtungo siya sa embahada upang doon mag-testify sa pamamagitan ng Zoom habang under oath, subalit ang ating kasamahan mula sa minorya na si Senator Ronal Dela Rosa ang mismong nagpaalaala at nagbabala laban sa hakbang na ito.
This caution makes sense, Mr. President: Kung siya ay nagtestify sa loob ng Philippine embassy at mapatunayang nagsisinungaling at ma-cite in contempt of the BRC, kaya ba siyang ipakulong o i-detain ng embahada sa loob mismo ng kanilang gusali? Dahil dito, Mr. President, ang tanging paraan lamang upang tanggapin ng komite ang mga pahayag ni Zaldy Co ay ang pagbabalik niya sa Pilipinas at personal na pagdalo sa pagdinig.
Nais ko ring tugunan ang mga kritiko at ilang gumagamit ng isyu ng “67 cong-tractors” bilang dahilan upang hindi pirmahan ang ating Partial Committee Report.
Liwanagin ko lang po muli. Hindi ko kailanman sinabing hawak ko ang listahan ng mga cong-tractor na ito. To set the record straight, ang makailang ulit ko nang nabanggit ay ang impormasyong ibinahagi lamang ng isang congressman — walang detalye kung sino-sino.
Kung mayroon mang may hawak ng impormasyon, o kung kaya nilang tukuyin ang iba pang mga cong-tractors na ito—katulad ng ginagawa ni Ombudsman Remulla— name them. If you have the evidence, present it. If you know the perpetrators, expose them. The Committee will provide the platform for you.
Our recommendations are, by design, recommendatory and conditioned on independent investigation. Kung mali ang alegasyon, the process clears them. Kung totoo, the process convicts — with due process and accountability – makukulong ang dapat makulong.
Para klaro sa publiko: laman ng ating committee report ang ‘menu’ ng mga posibleng kasong kriminal na pwedeng isampa.
Depende sa ebidensya, ang mga prosecutors ang pipili ng nararapat na sakdal batay sa kanilang sariling pagsusuri at pagkilala sa mga ebidensyang naipasa na at ipapasa pa ng Komite, gayundin sa iba pang mga patunay na kanilang makakalap sa proseso ng case build-up sa kaso ng DOJ o fact-finding at preliminary investigation naman kung sa Ombudsman.
Una, Malversation sa ilalim ng Article 217 ng Revised Penal Code.
Ang “accountable officer” ang pangunahing may sala o principal, ngunit ang mga kasabwat o “co-conspirators”, kabilang ang mga non-custodian public officers at pribadong indibidwal, ay maaari ring managot para sa diversion of funds, maging sa ghost at substandard flood control projects.
2) Direct Bribery, Bribe-giving o pagbibigay ng suhol, at Korapsyon sa ilalim ng RPC Article 210
Ang siste ng quid pro quo sa flood control scam ay nasa anyo ng pagmamaniobra ng mga proyekto, pagpapadali ng mga award, pagpapabilis ng paglalabas ng pondo, pagpirma na tapos na umano ang proyekto, o ang paggamit ng posisyon upang bigyan ng pabor ang mga kontraktor. Maaari ring ituring na sabwatan o conspiracy sa direct bribery.
3) Sa ilalim ng Section 3(a) ng Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act o RA 3019, maaring makasuhan ang mga opisyal ng gobyerno na kasabwat sa flood control anomalies dahil sa panghihikayat, pag-uudyok, o pag-impluwensya sa isa pang opisyal ng pamahalaan na magsagawa ng gawaing labag sa tuntunin at regulasyon na may kaugnayan sa kanyang opisyal na tungkulin. Kabilang din ang pagpapahintulot sa sarili na mahikayat, maudyukan, o maimpluwensyahan na gawin ang nasabing paglabag o pagkakasala.
Sa ilalim ng Section 3(b) ng parehong batas, krimen ang paghingi o pagso-solicit ng kickbacks, porsyento, “commissions”, “obligasyon”, at anumang porma ng benepisyo para sa sarili o para sa ibang tao, na may kaugnayan sa anumang kontrata o transaksyon sa gobyerno.
Sa pagdinig ng Komite, malinaw itong nakita sa pamamagitan ng direktang ebidensya o sa mga circumstantial na katibayan pati na rin sa nailantad na workflow at delivery ng mga kickbacks.
5) Section 3(e) ng RA 3019 ukol sa undue injury o unwarranted benefits. Nailatag din natin ang labis na pinsala sa pamahalaan dulot ng ghost at substandard projects gayundin ang pagbibigay bentahe o pabor sa mga private parties tulad ng mga flood control contractors mula sa rigged biddings, favored suppliers, at manipulasyon ng procurement services. Lahat ng mga nakibahagi na takers, negotiators, pati na ang mga tumatanggap ng royalties, padulas, at “sahod” sa mga bidding ay kabilang dito.
6) Plunder sa ilalim ng Republic Act 7080. Gayong hindi tayo ang magbibigay hatol kung sapat na ba ang threshold para sa kaso, tungkulin ng Komite na ilantad ang paulit-ulit na sistema at ang malawakang saklaw ng katiwaliang ito na malinaw na hudyat ng “pattern of predicate offenses” sa ilalim ng RA 7080. Ang mga ebidensyang nakuha ay isusumite sa AMLC at verification upang mabusisi nang husto.
7) Money Laundering (RA 9160) at AMLC Bank Inquiry/Freeze/Forfeiture — Batay sa nakalap na ebidensya, mariing inirerekomenda ng Komite ang referrals para sa AMLC fact-finding; kabilang na ang bank deposit freeze order applications sa Court of Appeals, at ang pagsusuri sa mga bank account sa bisa ng utos ng CA.
8) Falsification/false identities/procurement documents falsification — Ang paggamit ng mga fake IDs at pinekeng dokumento ay itinuturing na mga evidentiary links — at gagamitin ang mga ito para masuri ang pinagmulan ng proceeds ng krimen gayundin ang paraan ng pagkuha nito, at ang mga rutang ginamit sa money laundering.
9) Ang Perjury/false sworn statements/certifications sa ilalim ng RPC Article 183 naman ay para sa pagpapatunay ng material, provable falsehoods.
10) Bid rigging/collusion (RA 10667), procurement reform (RA 12009) — Ang sabwatan sa bidding ay itinuturing na procurement fraud at pinsala sa malayang kompetisyon; pinupuntirya ng Competition Act ang bid rigging dahil pinapalitan nito ang fair market competition at pinapaboran lamang sa mga kartel.
11) Ethics/Conflict of Interest sa ilalim ng RA 6713 at SALN at Divestment — Ang conflict of interest ang nagsisilbing enabling layer ng katiwalian. Mahalagang masukol ang mga magkakasala sa ilalim ng batas dahil ito ang isa sa mga dahilan ng pananatili at paglalim ng flood control scam.
Mr. President, this report is a referral-and-reform package. Simple lang: imbestigahan nang legal, alamin kung ano ang nangyari, bawiin ang kaya pang bawiin, at ayusin ang batas—para hindi doble bayad ang Pilipino: sa buwis at sa delubyo ng baha.
As we move forward, the Committee will continue the work it has carefully begun in these hearings. In the resumption of our hearings, we will scrutinize matters that need further scrutiny.
Una, mas malalim at mabusising imbestigasyon hinggil sa usapin ng allocables at leadership fund. Pagtuunan ng pansin ng Komite ang mga opisyal na dokumentong ating nakalap mula sa DPWH. Kabilang dito ang mga sulat galing sa mga mambabatas na maaring pag-aralan para magpakita ng paper trail na nag-uugnay sa mga flood control projects.
What you see here Mr. President, are just random letters from our file.
Magpapadala pa rin tayo ng pormal na imbitasyon kay dating Speaker Romualdez, sa pamamagitan ng kasalukuyang Speaker ng Kamara, upang bigyang-daan ang kanyang panig at paglilinaw hinggil sa mga alegasyong ibinabato laban sa kanya.
If and when Zaldy Co is returned to the Philippines, we are prepared to bring him together with his former staff, including former members of the military. This step will ensure that the Committee’s findings remain fair, balanced, and firmly grounded on facts and evidence.
Mr. President, the road to full accountability is long. But we must start to agree somewhere. This Chairman’s Report is a decisive step forward. We owe it to the witnesses who spoke up, to the experts who provided evidence, and most importantly, to the millions of Filipinos who find themselves neck-deep in floodwaters every time a storm hits. We cannot let their efforts—and ours—go to waste, Mr. President.
In the interest of orderly and more comprehensive discussions and productive deliberations and to avoid redundant and repetitive clarificatory questions that may be posited by our colleagues, I reserve my right to address any and all interpellations after my sponsorship of the still pending Partial Committee Report. Dalawa na lang po, 2 or 3 more at pwede nang i-file sa Bills and Index Division ng Senado ang partial committee report. Until then, I am not yet yielding the floor.
Thank you, Mr. President.
*****
One Reply to “”