Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson is seeking two more members of the blue ribbon committee that would sign the controversial partial report on the flood control corruption so the chamber can push for reforms to “dismantle” its “very anatomy.”
Reporting on the partial committee report on Tuesday on the floor, Lacson acknowledged that only seven senators have signed it three months after he had it circulated for approval by the 17-member panel.
He needs the signatures of nine senators for the partial committee report to be sponsored and reach the Senate floor for deliberation.
Sen. Raffy Tulfo is the latest to sign the report, according to Lacson. Those who signed earlier are Senators Bam Aquino, Risa Hontiveros, Francis Pangilinan and Erwin Tulfo, and Senate President Vicente Sotto III, and himself.
“This report is a referral-and-reform package,” Lacson said in a privilege speech he delivered in English and Filipino. “It’s this simple: Have [the flood control corruption] investigated legally, find out what really happened; recover what can still be recovered, and fix the laws—so that the people would not have to pay twice [in] taxes and flood catastrophe.”
Lacson presented a Chairman’s Progress Report containing the partial report on the flood control investigation, noting that most of its findings “are no longer new and first view—they have already been validated, if not overtaken, by current events.”
“While the report is pending, the wheels of justice have already begun to grind, and I take pride in saying, in line with the direction of our report,” he said.
But he maintained: “We are not here to indict, much less convict or hand down a final judgment,” only to “assist proper authorities who shall independently evaluate these findings, determine probable cause, and take the necessary legal actions.”
Bolder PDAF scheme
Lacson said that it is the Filipino taxpayers who are the “complainant” in the flood control investigation, and that it is the duty of officials to answer three questions: “where did the money go, how was this corruption executed, and how do we fix the system so it never happens again.”
“The flood control crisis is the reincarnation of the 2013 Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam, but in a bolder scheme,” he said. “It serves as a scathing indictment of the failure of our institutions to deter corrupt machinations.”
He pointed out that as in the PDAF scandal, which involved the plunder of ₱10 billion in pork barrel funds, the enterprise in the flood control scam was “similarly orchestrated by a cabal of officials led by legislators, and their co-conspirators within the government and private sector, only with a diversified format and modus of thievery, timing, and language.”
8 actors
From the eight blue ribbon committee hearings, Lacson identified eight “actors” in the flood control corruption: the proponents (government officials behind the projects who get 15–30% in kickbacks); the bagmen (authorized representatives or emissaries of the proponents); the senior officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) who serve as facilitators of the proponents; the DPWH Group (syndicate groups implementing the projects, such as the Bulacan first district engineering office); the contractors (who give advances to the proponents); the officials in the executive branch; the bankers; and the constitutional oversight group.
On how the corruption scheme was executed, testimonies and documents showed that “a wide range of public officials, from legislators to frontline officials, were complicit either by approving dubious projects, signing off on ‘ghost projects,’ or failing to enforce procurement and performance standards and accountability safeguards,” the committee chair said.
Proposed reforms
On how to fix the system, he suggested removing the “allocables” and “leadership funds” that the DPWH had created to ensure the allocation of project funds. Also: itemize unprogrammed appropriations (UAs), ensure strict compliance with the fund release, and publicly disclose excess revenue certifications for the use and release of UAs.
The blue ribbon committee likewise proposed amendments to the Ombudsman’s Act, such as creating an anti-corruption law enforcement service; allowing the Ombudsman to deputize private lawyers as special investigators or prosecutors; and producing fiscal autonomy laws for the Ombudsman.
Other proposals include the creation of legislation defining and penalizing infrastructure fraud and bid-rigging in the award of public infrastructure contracts; authorizing the Ombudsman and justice secretary to issue hold-departure orders on those involved in corruption; and enforcing strict prohibition and higher penalties on government employees gambling in casinos.
“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 systematic greed,” Lacson said.
He said the proposed committee report includes a recommendation on the preliminary investigation of several lawmakers, noting that the Ombudsman has filed criminal cases at the Sandiganbayan against former and incumbent officials, contractors, and individuals involved in the flood control mess in the provinces of Bulacan and Oriental Mindoro.
Lacson also made clear that the blue ribbon committee had invited Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez to appear in its inquiry but that the former House speaker had declined. He said inter-chamber courtesy has always been practiced in the Senate and the House of Representatives by way of explaining why no subpoenas had been issued to Romualdez.
‘Menu’ of possible charges
The Senate President Pro Tempore also announced that the partial committee report contains a “menu” of possible charges that may be filed against those involved in the flood control controversy, including malversation, direct bribery, plunder, money laundering, bid rigging, and ethics/conflict of interest, among others.
He did not name the lawmakers whom the committee has recommended for preliminary investigation.
During the committee hearings, Senators Chiz Escudero, Jinggoy Estrada and Joel Villanueva, as well as former senator Bong Revilla, were alleged to have benefited from flood control funds. Revilla has since been detained while awaiting trial at the anti-graft court.
In ending his speech, Lacson said he would entertain interpellations on the partial committee report once it is sponsored on the floor. Nevertheless, Sen. Rodante Marcoleta rose to question him, to no avail.
Marcoleta said he found it “unusual” that Lacson would impose the “precondition” that he would yield to questions only when the report is sponsored on the floor.
Senate President Sotto reminded Marcoleta that it is “the prerogative of senators to yield or not to yield” to interpellations on their privilege speeches. He cited as an example the practice of the late senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago to skip interpellation after delivering a privilege speech. CS
