Category: Philippines Daily Inquirer

Former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Elizaldy Co’s decision to resign from his post would not shield him and his organization from his alleged wrongdoing, Cebu 5th District Rep. Duke Frasco said on Tuesday.

‘The resignation of Cong. Zaldy Co should not, and cannot, erase his crimes, nor absolve Ako Bicol Partylist, the vehicle through which these abuses were committed,’ Frasco said in a statement.

Co, in a surprise move, stepped down on Monday, meeting the deadline set by House of Representatives Speaker Faustino ‘Bojie’ Dy III for the former lawmaker to return home.

‘Resignation spared Co from sanction by the House, but it also exposed the weakness of our system. While Co walks away, his conduit, Ako Bicol Partylist, keeps its seat, benefits, and power as if nothing happened. This is not accountability. This is impunity,’ he added.

But Co’s fellow Ako Bicol party-list member, Rep. Alfredo Garbin, said that Frasco’s statements appear to rest on ‘conjecture rather than fact’ – noting that no case has been filed nor any judgment has been rendered regarding allegations against Co.

Garbin also highlighted Frasco’s choice of words – mentioning the word ‘impunity’ – while noting that the 1987 Constitution provides the presumption of innocence.

‘The press release of Rep. Frasco alleging ‘impunity’ on the part of former Representative Zaldy Co and the Ako Bicol Party-list rests on conjecture rather than fact. At the outset, it must be emphasized that these are mere allegations – no criminal or administrative case has been filed, much less adjudicated, before any competent court or tribunal,’ Garbin said in a separate statement.

‘The constitutional presumption of innocence under Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution is not a privilege selectively applied but a fundamental right extended to all citizens, including members of Congress. To prejudge Zaldy Co in the absence of due process would be a dangerous erosion of the rule of law itself,’

According to Garbin, a lawyer by profession, he agrees with Frasco’s views – that resignation does absolve Co of any possible accountability – but the move was made out of delicadeza, to step away from office to ensure non-interference in any probe that may be conducted.

‘The suggestion that resignation constitutes an escape from liability betrays a misunderstanding of both law and practice. A public official’s resignation neither extinguishes liability nor immunizes one from investigation. As jurisprudence repeatedly affirms, as in the case of Santiago v. Bautista (G.R. No. 195835, 2013), resignation is a personal act of relinquishment of office but does not divest courts, the Ombudsman, or other investigative bodies of jurisdiction over acts committed while in office,’ Garbin said.

‘In other words, resignation cannot and does not absolve Zaldy Co of accountability, if any is proven. On the contrary, it demonstrates delicadeza – an ethical choice to step aside so as not to influence ongoing inquiries while focusing on his legal defense and medical treatment,’ he added.

Business and party-lists

Frasco also touched on allegations that there was conflict of interest when Co, as a former lawmaker and former head of the House committee on appropriations, allocated funds to infrastructure projects that were eventually picked up by a company supposedly connected to him.

‘Under Section 141 (h) of the House Rules, ‘A Member shall not acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by the Member that is approved or adopted by Congress during the Member’s term’,’ Frasco said.

‘Yet as a shareholder of construction firms that secured contracts funded by the GAA, and as co-conspirator in the insertion of billions for projects that benefited himself and his cohorts, Co clearly breached this rule, among other existing laws,’ he added.

According to Frasco, any accountability demanded from Co must extend to the party-list involved, as it may set a dangerous precedent.

‘Accountability must extend beyond individuals. If consequences are limited only to a nominee, Congress sets a dangerous precedent: that members can violate rules, resign to avoid expulsion, and leave their party untouched. To protect the integrity of our institutions, Ako Bicol Partylist must face investigation, sanction, and, if warranted, disqualification,’ he noted.

But Garbin said that the party-list law defines organizations as ‘separate juridical entities from their nominees.’

‘Equally important is the attempt to conflate Zaldy Co’s personal accountability with that of Ako Bicol Party-list. The Party-list System Act clearly defines party-list organizations as separate juridical entities from their nominees. To punish Ako Bicol for unproven allegations against one nominee would not only contravene the principle of separate juridical personality but disenfranchise the millions of Bicolanos who vested their trust in Ako Bicol,’ he said.

‘Morally, Zaldy Co’s act of resignation is not an abandonment, but a sacrifice. It demonstrates respect for institutional integrity, allowing investigations to proceed free of any suspicion of undue influence. Practically, it ensures that legislative work continues unhampered, as Ako Bicol remains steadfast in serving its constituents. To portray this as ‘impunity’ is to twist an act of humility into an act of arrogance,’ he added.

Co is currently facing a myriad of issues regarding the 2025 national budget and the infrastructure project scandal.

At the Senate blue ribbon committee hearing, contractor-couple Pacifico and Sarah Discaya named several lawmakers, including Co who allegedly asked for and received kickbacks from infrastructure projects, after their firms were able to bag government contracts.

Last Tuesday, Henry Alcantara and Brice Hernandez, former officials of the ent of Public Works and Highways – Bulacan First District Engineering Office tagged Co and other lawmakers as allegedly involved in the kickbacks scheme for infrastructure projects.

Aside from this, Co is also criticized as Sunwest Corporation which he co-founded eventually figured as one of the top 15 contractors for flood control projects.

The ‘heart’ sign of contractor Cezarah ‘Sarah’ Discaya on her recent appearance at the Department of Justice (DOJ) was ‘misinterpreted.’

Her lawyer, Atty. Cornelio Samaniego III, said this in an ambush interview at the office of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) on Tuesday.

Samaniego emphasized that her client Sarah, along with her husband Pacifico ‘Curlee’ Discaya, was sincere about wanting to be state witnesses in the investigation on flood control anomalies across the country.

The contractor couple attended for the first time the hearing of the ICI on the flood control anomalies investigation this Tuesday.

‘Maybe we just misinterpreted that. Actually, it (finger heart) means a lot – peace, love,’ Samaniego clarified.

The lawyer argued that Sarah’s finger heart was given a ‘not-good meaning’ by the media and the public.

When specifically asked what the contractor meant when she made the sign at the DOJ, Samaniego said, ‘love and peace.’

According to Samaniego, the recently mentioned action of Sarah does not manifest ‘insincerity,’ saying that they are very sincere in participating in the investigation.

‘The mere fact that we appeared before the Senate, House, DOJ, and then ICI – we’re very sincere. That’s why we are all tell-all,’ the lawyer of the contractor couple said.

‘What sincerity are you asking from the couple? We’ve already given it all,’ he added.

Earlier, DOJ spokesperson Jose Dominic Clavano IV said Sarah’s heart sign was ‘a sign of insincerity and complacency.’ ‘The heart sign and the remarks of Ms. Sarah Discaya are all taken into account in the assessment and evaluation of the persons involved,’ Clavano said.

The Discayas are included among the contractors that are under investigation for alleged involvement in anomalies in flood control projects. /apl

The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) has taken custody of a suspected underwater drone recovered by local fishermen in the waters off Barangay Barangonan, Linapacan, Palawan, according to Commodore Jay Tarriela, PCG spokesperson for the West Philippine Sea.

Tarriela said the device-approximately 13 feet long-was discovered on Sunday by a group of fishermen from Sitio Tapic, Barangay New Colaylayan, Linapacan, during routine fishing operations.

Later that same evening, the fishermen handed over the autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) to coast guard personnel. It has since been secured at PCG Station Linapacan for further verification, technical examination, and investigation, in coordination with relevant national security agencies.

The AUV is now undergoing detailed forensic analysis to determine its origin, operational history, and any potential security threats.

‘The sensor includes Chinese labeling and a serial number (CTD-20090334), along with visible corrosion from prolonged saltwater exposure. It is mounted on a rugged metal frame, typical of components in autonomous underwater vehicles commonly known as underwater drones,’ Tarriela added.

He noted that this incident is the latest in a string of similar recoveries in Philippine waters since July 2022./coa

Apart from naked greed and selfish political agendas, a faulty understanding of national budgeting principles may have led our legislators to feel little guilt or shame over their unprecedented self-serving national budget realignments. Massive amounts reallocated in the 2025 budget to spurious flood control projects came prominently from the defunding of nearly P300 billion in official development assistance (ODA) or foreign loan-funded projects and from relegating them to the unprogrammed budget. This part of the budget, which has ballooned after 2022, is, in effect, a ‘waiting list’ of expenditure items that can only push through if unexpected additional funds become available. By implication, these are lower-priority expenditures that the country can afford to set aside in favor of those in the main or programmed budget.

The problem is, ODA projects are nothing like that. They are by nature priority projects, having passed rigid scrutiny by the interagency Investment Coordination Committee and rigorous technical analysis by the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (formerly National Economic and Development Authority). They form part of the Public Investment Program accompanying the Philippine Development Plan and are essential to the fulfillment of our PDP goals and targets. For our ODA partners, PIP projects are the ‘shopping list’ of priority projects from which they can choose what to fund with their soft loans (loans with lower interest rates and longer grace periods and repayment terms) to be truly responsive to our development goals. These are most certainly not low-priority projects we can set aside in favor of budget insertions by legislators, many of which have turned out to be ‘ghost’ projects that put fabulous sums in the pockets of conniving lawmakers, government officials, and contractors-as is now being exposed in full view.

Why the seeming lack of hesitation to shove aside ‘counterpart funding’ for ODA projects despite these having high priority? Most lawmakers don’t seem to understand what these ‘counterpart funds’ really are, a misunderstanding I’ve found to be common since my days in the government in the 1990s. The term ‘counterpart’ misleads many, including lawmakers, to think of it simply as the government’s equity share in the funding for ODA projects, and that the foreign lender’s ‘counterpart’ will still be there to spend even without the government’s share. But that is not the case.

‘Appropriations cover’ is the better term rather than ‘counterpart funds’ for the budget allocation needed to release ODA loan proceeds. Every peso of ODA loan proceeds needs to be appropriated in the budget to be spent. In the national fiscal accounts, ODA loan proceeds are treated as ‘deficit financing,’ not additional funds to the government’s budgetary resources from taxes, fees, and other revenues. That is, ODA project loans, which must be paid back, count as part of the total government borrowing to finance the deficit, or the gap between its revenues and expenditures, which now cumulatively totals P17 trillion. (On the other hand, foreign grants that need no repayment are automatically appropriated, hence need no budget line. Here, the term ‘counterpart’ is correctly used as it’s widely understood and is indeed the government’s equity shares to supplement the donor’s grant.)

This is why shifting some P300 billion of ODA ‘counterpart funds’ to the unprogrammed budget is such a serious matter. It means none of the shifted ODA project’s loan funds will get released at all, unless the government manages to raise more revenues than were projected for the year. It’s an outright breach of loan agreements signed with our foreign partners, who have been scratching their heads over our seemingly irrational repudiation of assistance they have so kindly offered us, as this is what defunding the ODA programs amounts to. And because these soft loans are dispensed through financial institutions, customary commitment fees apply, meaning, if we don’t spend the funds, we pay the lender a penalty for keeping the money idle.

But the bigger cost our irresponsible lawmakers have brought upon our country is the chilling signal it has sent to the financial markets and investment community that our government is not to be trusted. The signs are already evident. The peso has been depreciating much faster than it should, even as the United States Federal Reserve’s recent interest rate easing should have moved it in the opposite direction (like our neighbors’ currencies have in fact done). While our peso declines in value, our neighbors’ currencies are moving the other way. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas won’t say it publicly, but they see the problem.

The insatiable greed in high places, now being exposed to all, is pulling the entire economy and country down. This time, we shouldn’t let them get away with it.

Oxford-Everything, everywhere, all at once. That’s how I felt shortly before heading out of the country again for yet another academic engagement. Barely a week after returning to the country following my visiting scholar stint in Canada, where I met senior policymakers, academics, and community members from across the country, I headed out to the United Kingdom to further hone my public policy analysis under a Jardine scholarship at the University of Oxford. Thanks to the generous (and highly competitive) scholarship and the impeccable academic environment at Oxford, I looked forward to finally carving out some time to fully focus on research, deep writing, and, overall, to embracing a measure of scholarly solitude.

Truth be told, my mind was tethered to developments back home, especially after an intense week that started with covering the historic ‘Trillion Peso March’ and, over the following days, holding long conversations with leading experts and citizens of the country. In fact, just before I flew out of the country, I hosted a quadrilateral episode for my ‘Deep Dive’ podcast with former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, a titan of our West Philippine Sea struggle; former Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, a leading jurist who helped frame both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions; and former Political Affairs Secretary Ronald Llamas, a rockstar pundit and a beating heart of social democracy in the Philippines. At the core of our discussions was a singular question: Are we peering into the abyss?

Just as I warned earlier this month (see ‘Fighting corruption: Brazil’s hard lessons,’ 9/16/25), comparative politics in developing democracies shows that anticorruption investigations tend to become polarizing, politicized, and ultimately destabilizing. This is especially the case if institutions are weak, clowns and crooks dominate elected offices, and the public is fed up with continuous cycles of corruption and misgovernance. As dramatic as it has been, the revamp in the government-starting from the change of leadership in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the comprehensive purge of top leaders in the Department of Public Works and Highways-is far from sufficient. People are asking for blood, and heads have to roll. To begin with, the people’s outrage is palpable. From journalist Kara David to celebrities, such as Vice Ganda, prominent personalities are openly calling for the literal demise of corrupt officials or the reinstatement of the death penalty: ‘Sana mamatay sila!’ ‘Bring back the death penalty for corrupt officials. Jail even their families.’

Moreover, there seems to be no center of gravity, nor a clear road map. It’s far from certain where and how far President Marcos is willing to take his newly found anticorruption crusade when corruption is so endemic and could reach the highest echelons of power.

To put things into perspective, Sen. Panfilo Lacson has claimed that almost all senators, with the notable exception of principled progressives such as Sen. Risa Hontiveros, made shady insertions in the previous fiscal year. ‘It was humongous . I have never seen such amounts,’ the current chair of the Senate blue ribbon committee claimed, referring to at least P100 billion in de facto pork barrel funds.

Just like Brazil in the mid-2010s amid the ‘Operation Carwash’ corruption scandal, we might end up with the collapse of the entire political center. And this brings us to the third factor, namely the vultures circling and ready to destabilize and dismantle our democracy altogether.

The riots in Mendiola by unidentified elements are just the tip of the iceberg. ‘If only Sara Duterte were not the Vice President, you guys would have taken over,’ an administration ally shared in a closed-door meeting. He was referring to rumors of a possible coup. No less than Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Manny Mogato referred to an ‘attempt to unseat’ the President, with ‘a large Christian-denomination sect [meeting] with a top Army commander days before the protest’ to trigger an en masse defection in the barracks on the back of the massive anticorruption protest on Sept. 21. In fairness, the Armed Forces of the Philippines has vehemently rejected the rumors, which are yet to be substantiated.

What is clear, however, is that the next ‘Trillion Peso March’ may turn less peaceful if the chief perpetrators continue to enjoy impunity and the notorious Discayas are given de facto immunity under a witness protection program. Criminal liability is what people are demanding beyond the seeming theatrics of hearings and investigations.