MANILA(April 20) — The Senate’s inquiry into the alleged P100-billion flood control scam is fast turning into a test of political will, as Panfilo Lacson pushes for a direct face-off between Zaldy Co and state witness Roberto Bernardo—a confrontation that could finally establish who engineered the scheme, or expose the probe’s limits in holding powerful figures to account.
At stake is not just the credibility of two key witnesses, but whether the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee can move beyond explosive allegations and identify those responsible for allegedly diverting billions in public funds meant for flood control projects.
Lacson said the planned confrontation would allow Co and Bernardo to challenge each other’s claims over the supposed P100-billion budget insertion in the 2025 national budget—funds allegedly converted into commissions through public works projects.
The push comes after Co accused President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of receiving P25 billion in kickbacks—an allegation Bernardo has disputed, claiming he had access to the same project list but found inconsistencies in Co’s account.
According to Lacson, Bernardo asserts personal knowledge of how the funds were handled, alleging that P52 billion of the P81 billion allocated for infrastructure projects passed through him to facilitate kickbacks, while another P29 billion was handled by former public works secretary Manuel Bonoan and former education undersecretary Trygve Olaivar.
But even as allegations pile up, the path to accountability remains uncertain.
Lacson himself has flagged glaring inconsistencies in other testimonies, particularly claims that “18 ex-Marines” transported P805 billion in cash—an assertion he questioned on logistical grounds. He also raised concerns over the disappearance of key witness Orly Guteza, who had linked Co to alleged kickback deliveries involving former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The inconsistencies underscore a deeper problem: without corroborated evidence and accountable witnesses, the investigation risks collapsing into a battle of narratives.
That risk is compounded by divisions within the Senate itself.
Senator JV Ejercito has challenged Lacson’s decision to suspend hearings pending the completion of a partial committee report, arguing that proceedings should resume immediately once Co is able to testify.
For Ejercito, the delay only fuels public doubt.
He said the draft report fails to clearly identify the “real culprits,” particularly lawmakers allegedly acting as “cong-tractors”—controlling project funds while operating as contractors themselves.
Meanwhile, Senate President Vicente Sotto III has urged senators to sign the report to move the process forward, even as some members reportedly resist—highlighting the political fault lines shaping the probe’s direction.
In the end, the anticipated Co–Bernardo showdown may do more than settle conflicting claims. It could determine whether the Senate can deliver answers on where the money went—and who should be held responsible—or whether one of the country’s most explosive corruption probes fades without clear accountability.
