Casino Kings and Contract Cronies: Lacson’s Senate Smackdown of DPWH’s Dirty Laundry

With ₱950 million gambled away and family firms feasting on contracts, Lacson’s exposé is a masterclass in calling out corruption’s VIP list.

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — September 12, 2025

WELL, color me shocked. In the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), “public service” is apparently code for “family dynasty” and “casino jackpot.” Senator Panfilo Lacson, wielding a privilege speech like a flamethrower, scorched the Senate floor on September 10, 2025, connecting so many dots of alleged graft he’s practically drawn a constellation of corruption. His exposé, brimming with receipts that could make a forensic accountant faint, unveils a DPWH where contracts are family heirlooms, budgets are curated like a fast-food menu, and casino losses hit nine figures. Let’s slice this scandal open with the precision of a constitutional scholar and the savage glee of a tabloid editor at a corruption banquet.

The BGC Boys: Squandering Flood Funds in a Casino Bonanza

Meet the “BGC Boys”—Henry Alcantara, Brice Hernandez, Jaypee Mendoza, Arjay Domasig, and Edrick San Diego—five dismissed DPWH engineers who apparently thought the public treasury was a slot machine. ₱950 million in casino losses across 13 venues? That’s not a gambling problem; it’s a masterclass in torching public funds. Did they mistake the VIP room for a Bulacan flood control site? The only thing more inundated than Pampanga’s rivers is their financial wreckage.

Lacson’s evidence, now with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), screams suspicious transactions under Republic Act (RA) 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Act. Their lavish lifestyles—think multimillion-peso wristwatches—echo the Supreme Court’s ruling in Garcia v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 167741, 2011), where disproportionate wealth from public contracts was a neon sign of graft. Boys, your bling is practically a guilty plea.

But let’s play devil’s advocate. Maybe they’re just abysmally bad at roulette, funded by a legitimate crypto windfall or a rich auntie’s inheritance. Except RA 9160 mandates casinos to file Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) for fishy cash flows, especially when tied to predicate crimes like graft under RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The AMLC must be licking its chops. Proving those millions came from ghost flood projects is the challenge, but with losses this obscene, their paper trail better be cleaner than a DPWH contract.

Bonoan, Maglanque, and the MBB Dynasty: A Nepotism Nightmare

The “MBB” in MBB Global Properties isn’t “Magnificent Building Bonanza” but a triumvirate of alleged nepotism so brazen it would make a feudal lord blush. Former DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan, Mayor Rene Maglanque, and Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo have allegedly turned flood control contracts into a family empire. Lacson’s General Information Sheet (GIS) reveal—waved like a matador’s cape—lists their kids, including Bonoan’s daughter Fatima Gay B. Dela Cruz as treasurer, running the show. This isn’t a corporate filing; it’s a family reunion with a ₱2.2 billion payout.

Maglanque’s Globalcrete Builders snagged ₱2.195 billion in Bulacan flood contracts from 2018 to 2024, despite him clinging to the presidency in 2024. RA 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, demands divestment, not this “my family firm scored billions from my government gig” nonsense. The Supreme Court in Office of the Ombudsman v. Espina (G.R. No. 213500, March 15, 2017). branded such conflicts presumptively corrupt, warranting a swift boot from office.

Oh, sure, maybe it’s all a coincidence. Perhaps Globalcrete’s contracts were won through sheer engineering genius, outbidding rivals in a process as pristine as a mountain spring. Except RA 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act, mandates competitive bidding, and the Supreme Court in Rolando Bolastig Montejo v. People of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. 248086-93, June 28, 2021) has no tolerance for cozy deals reeking of favoritism. The GIS is public record, not a conspiracy scribble, and Maglanque’s refusal to divest as mayor violates RA 6713, Section 7(b)(1), louder than a jackhammer at dawn. Prove no influence was peddled, folks, because your family tree looks like a graft org chart.

Usec. Cabral’s Budget Buffet: Vetting or Vendetta?

Undersecretary Ma. Catalina Cabral earns a gold star for audacity with her screenshot-of-the-century. A casual message to Senator Vicente Sotto III, inviting “priority projects” for the 2026 National Expenditure Program (NEP)? That’s not vetting; it’s vending billions like street food. RA 3019, Section 3(b), bans soliciting unwarranted benefits, and the Supreme Court in Belgica v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 208566, 2013) gutted similar budget-tinkering for its pork barrel stench.

Cabral’s denial of influence is as believable as a contractor claiming a ghost project “just got delayed.” If authenticated, that screenshot is a smoking gun—though she might claim it’s just friendly policy banter. Good luck selling that to the Office of the Ombudsman, which will dissect every byte under RA 6770, the Ombudsman Act.

The Legal Guillotine: Laws Shredded, Precedents Torched

Time to sharpen the blade. These allegations aren’t mere ethical hiccups; they’re a legal inferno. RA 3019 nails officials for causing undue injury or granting unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality—think 6 to 15 years in jail and a lifetime ban from office. MBB’s family ties and Globalcrete’s contract haul scream Section 3(e) violations, especially if bidding was rigged.

RA 6713 (Code of Conduct) mandates divestment (Section 7) and public loyalty over family ties (Section 4). Maglanque’s dual role and Bonoan’s daughter’s corporate gig are textbook breaches, as Office of the Ombudsman v. Santos (G.R. No. 166116, Mar. 31, 2006) confirms. The BGC Boys’ casino spree? RA 9160’s money-laundering provisions (7-14 years per transaction) kick in if those funds trace to graft, with Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 167741 (July 12, 2007) loving officials with unexplained wealth.

Lacson’s speech is ironclad under Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago (A.C. No. 7399, 2005) confirms: senators can spew fire on the floor without libel worries. But if he repeats this in a presser, Trillanes v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 223451, 2018) says he’s open to lawsuits. The evidence—GIS, screenshot, casino records—needs authentication under the Rules of Court, Rule 130, and a chain of custody tighter than a DPWH budget. The Ombudsman and AMLC must prove intent and predicate crimes, as Ombudsman v. De Chavez (G.R. No. 172206, 2013) warns: suspicion isn’t a conviction.

The Justice Juggernaut: Prosecution or Publicity Stunt?

The Office of the Ombudsman must do more than open a case file; it needs to seize assets before they vanish into another casino. The AMLC should be camping in those 13 venues, tracing every peso under RA 9160, Section 7. The Senate? Subpoena everyone—Bonoan, Maglanque, Cabral, the BGC Boys—and put them under oath. Watch the amnesia epidemic unfold live, as Neri v. Senate (G.R. No. 180643, 2008) shows Congress can compel testimony.

Evidentiary hurdles loom: authenticating Cabral’s screenshot needs device logs, and tying casino losses to graft demands bank records and STRs. RA 3019 prosecutions require proof of manifest partiality or undue injury, not just shady vibes. The Sandiganbayan won’t buy “res ipsa loquitur” as a shortcut—sorry, Senator.

The Final Blow: Will Justice Crush or Crumble?

Lacson’s speech, shielded by privilege, isn’t just a bombshell; it’s a GPS for galactic-scale graft. The evidence—GIS, screenshots, casino losses—isn’t proof of guilt but a blazing “investigate me” billboard. The question isn’t if laws were broken, but how many, and with what audacity. RA 3019, RA 6713, and RA 9160 are being trampled like a Bulacan floodwall in a monsoon. The justice machine has its leads: the Ombudsman, AMLC, and Senate must act, not grandstand.

Will they? Or will this be another exposé drowned in hearings and hot air? It’s time to see if the system has fangs—or if it’s just another ghost project, fading into the swamp of impunity.

Key Citations

Statutes

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Sections 11 & 21 – Speech or Debate Clause and inquiries in aid of legislation.
Republic Act No. 3019 – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Republic Act No. 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Republic Act No. 9160 – Anti-Money Laundering Act.
Republic Act No. 6770 – Ombudsman Act.
Republic Act No. 9184 – Government Procurement Reform Act.

Jurisprudence

Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago (A.C. No. 7399, 2005) – Absolute privilege for Senate speeches.
Trillanes v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 223451, 2018) – Limits of immunity outside Congress.
Neri v. Senate (G.R. No. 180643, 2008) – Congressional inquiry powers.
Office of the Ombudsman v. Espina (G.R. No. 213500, March 15, 2017) – Conflicts of interest as corrupt.
Belgica v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 208566, 2013) – Invalidating pork barrel schemes.
Rolando Bolastig Montejo v. People of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. 248086-93, June 28, 2021) – Procurement favoritism.
Office of the Ombudsman v. Santos (G.R. No. 166116, Mar. 31, 2006) – Divestment enforcement.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 167741 (July 12, 2007) – Unexplained wealth as evidence of graft.
Ombudsman v. De Chavez (G.R. No. 172206, 2009) – Need for bad faith in graft cases.

Other References

Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) – Investigative authority.
Office of the Ombudsman – Administrative and criminal probes.
Sandiganbayan – Anti-graft court.
Rules of Court, Rule 130 – Evidence authentication.

Craving more scandal? Dig into the GIS filings, AMLC reports, or Senate transcripts at lawphil.net or senate.gov.ph. Barok’s done the dot-connecting—now demand the takedown.