Dear Editor,        

I've been following the news about Senator Panfilo Lacson's ongoing investigation into flood control projects, and I have to be honest—something about it just feels off. It's starting to look less like a genuine search for the truth and more like a hunt for a specific person. Or maybe a haunting, because no matter where the trail goes, it keeps circling back to the same target.

Now, let me be clear right from the start: this isn't an accusation of any crime. I'm not here to point fingers or make allegations I can't prove. But as a regular citizen just trying to make sense of the headlines, I think we need to talk about how this investigation is being presented. There's a pattern here, and it's getting harder and harder to ignore.

It all started with the "ghost projects." Senator Lacson alleged that flood-control projects in Taguig did exist—complete with questionable photos and suspicious billing. It was a serious charge, the kind that deserves a thorough look. But then, during a Senate budget hearing, the Public Works Secretary said they hadn't found a single ghost project in Taguig yet. Another official even reported that over a hundred projects had documented accomplishments. Now, that doesn't mean everything was perfect. But it certainly didn't back up the dramatic image of a city littered with fake infrastructure. Instead of giving anyone pause, the investigation seemed to shift gears.

Then came the second accusation: illegal reclamation along Laguna de Bay. The Philippine Reclamation Authority reported that about 30 hectares had bypassed its rules. Again, a serious finding that deserves a full look. But then Senator Lacson also linked billions of pesos in infrastructure spending to these questioned areas. And here's the problem—a reclamation violation and a person's direct involvement in it are two very different things. One doesn't automatically prove the other. It feels like the accusation is being stretched to cover more ground than the evidence actually supports.

And just as that issue was blowing up, the third bombshell dropped—"fake" land titles. Senator Lacson pointed to several parcels of land with allegedly fraudulent titles. But then the PRA chairman himself clarified that his agency had not declared those titles fake. A disputed title is not the same as a forged one. And more importantly, what does any of this have to do with Senator Alan Peter Cayetano or the Taguig City government? The connection is never clearly explained. It just hangs there in the air, another headline, another insinuation, another brick in a wall that seems to be built around a conclusion that was decided long ago.

So now we have three sets of accusations. Three opportunities for damaging headlines. Three separate burdens of proof that never quite seem to be met. It reminds me of an old, troubling police tactic: when you can't find evidence to prove a suspect's guilt, you just keep looking for something—anything—to keep the accusation alive. You throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. It's not about finding the truth anymore. It's about making sure the suspicion never goes away.

The pattern is troubling. An honest investigation follows the evidence wherever it leads. It doesn't seem to have a fixed destination. But with every new allegation, it feels like Taguig and Senator Cayetano are the only destinations this inquiry is interested in.

Senator Lacson is a former police chief. He, more than anyone, should know the difference between a suspicion, a corroborated fact, and evidence strong enough to prove guilt in a court of law. He knows that piling up allegations doesn't equal proof. He also knows the damage that can be done to a person's reputation simply by repeatedly linking their name to alleged wrongdoing before the facts are fully established. With his experience should come greater discipline, not a greater reliance on the sheer volume of accusations.

The real danger is that agencies like the DPWH, PRA, and Ombudsman could get dragged into a political tug-of-war between two senators. They need room to do their jobs, follow the evidence, and reach their own conclusions without being pressured to pick a side.

At the end of the day, the mark of a serious investigator isn't how many accusations he can level against a political rival. It's how faithfully he follows the evidence, even when it doesn't support his suspicions. That's the standard we should expect. Anything less turns legitimate oversight into something else entirely—a haunting that never ends.

A concerned citizen,

Melanio Abad (Cebu City)