Hearsay or Highway Robbery? How Malacañang Turned ‘Unauthenticated’ into a ₱1-Trillion Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card

Ping Lacson’s Probe vs. Claire Castro’s Procedural Fortress: Who Blinks First?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — December 28, 2025

MGA ka-kweba, in a nation where floods arrive more reliably than truth from Malacañang, here we are again—staring down yet another scandal that threatens to drown not just the streets but the entire Marcos administration. The “Cabral Files”—the Digital Sword of Damocles dangling over the necks of Cabinet secretaries—and the relentless verbal jousting between Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson and Presidential Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro are no mere Christmas gossip. This is a full-blown constitutional crisis masquerading as procedural hair-splitting.

Spare us the legalese, Usec. Castro. Your “hearsay” defense is as flimsy as those phantom flood control projects in Bulacan—nowhere to be found when the rains hit, yet billions vanish all the same.

Spare us the legalese, Usec. Castro. Your “hearsay” defense is as flimsy as those phantom flood control projects in Bulacan—non-existent when the rains come, but billions disappear anyway.

**“Caution: Hearsay May Be Slipperier Than the Road.”**

The Legalistic Charade: Castro’s Hearsay Firewall Meets Reality

Let’s dissect this with the scalpel it deserves. Under the Revised Rules on Evidence (Rules 128-134, Rules of Court, as amended), hearsay is indeed an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—generally inadmissible in a full-blown trial because it lacks the crucible of cross-examination. Fair enough, in a courtroom where proof beyond reasonable doubt reigns supreme.

But here’s the savage irony, Usec: We’re not in a tribunal yet. We’re at the stage of launching an investigation, where the standard is mere probable cause—that low bar where smoke is enough to suspect fire. The Palace isn’t the Sandiganbayan; it’s the Office of the President. Is Malacañang now demanding authenticated evidence before it’ll even glance at a potential crime scene involving plunder of public funds?

Because that’s what we’re talking about here: potential violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), where manifest partiality or gross negligence in handling public contracts can land officials in prison, and Republic Act No. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), where aggregating ill-gotten wealth over P50 million through a series of overt acts means life imprisonment. These aren’t petty procedural quibbles; these are felonies that could implicate Cabinet members in turning the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)’s flood control budget into a personal ATM—from P401 billion “allocable” ballooning to over P1 trillion in “outside allocables,” complete with ghost projects and contractor monopolies.

Castro hides behind “rule of law” while the administration coordinates with a “defunct” Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) and prays the Office of the Ombudsman moves at glacial speed. Rhetorical question: If the allegations involved opposition figures, would the Palace be so patiently procedural? Or would we already have task forces swarming like locusts?

The Lacson Gambit: Savior or Showman?

Senator Lacson, is this your last stand or your finest hour? Let’s be cynical—your motivations aren’t pure as driven snow. Legacy-building as the eternal Mr. Clean? Check. Bolstering the Senate’s institutional pride against executive overreach? Double check. Political posturing in a post-midterm landscape where you’re Senate President Pro Tempore? Triple check.

But damn it, Ping, you’re right on the substance. The “Cabral Files”—this Ghost in the Machine left by the late Undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral (whose tragic death raises eyebrows sharper than Kennon Road cliffs)—aren’t floating in a vacuum. They allegedly corroborate official budget books, sworn testimonies from Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearings, and admissions against interest from resource persons already neck-deep in admitted plunder.

And then there’s the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC)’s “web of accounts”—that potential silver bullet tracing fund movements through money laundering channels. Dismissing all this as “hearsay” isn’t prudence; it’s dangerously naive, bordering on willful blindness. Lacson’s call for an inter-agency probe isn’t accountability theater—it’s the only bulwark against the perception (nay, the reality) of executive stonewalling.

The Specter of Precedent: Supreme Court Ghosts Haunt the Debate

The High Court has spoken before, and its rulings hang like storm clouds over this mess.

Recall Belgica v. Executive Secretary Ochoa (G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013)—the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) slaughterhouse where the Supreme Court declared post-enactment congressional interventions in budget implementation unconstitutional, a grey zone “ripe for abuse” through informal insertions. Here we are again: Cabinet members allegedly acting as “proponents” for DPWH insertions, blurring executive and legislative lines in ways that make Belgica look prophetic.

On the flip side, Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (G.R. No. 89914, November 20, 1991) reminds Lacson that Senate probes must be strictly “in aid of legislation”—not a roving commission substituting for the Ombudsman or courts. No due process violations, no fishing expeditions. Fair warning, Senator: Your power is broad, but tethered. Aim for legislative reform, not headlines.

The Grand Unraveling: Three Apocalyptic Endgames

Where does this Digital Sword fall? Three scenarios, each more apocalyptic than the last:

The Whitewash: The Ombudsman dawdles, the ICI remains a corpse, public outrage fizzles like post-Christmas fireworks. Consequence? Total erosion of trust. The “cover-up” narrative cements, protests reignite (remember the Catholic Church’s pastoral fury?), and Marcos’ “Build Better More” becomes “Build Better Excuses.”
The Bloodbath: Authentication of the Cabral Files (already turned over to authorities, mind you) triggers Ombudsman cases. Preventive suspensions for key Cabinet officials. Consequence? Executive paralysis—flood projects grind to halt amid real floods, political crisis ensues, and the administration hemorrhages credibility faster than a ghost project’s budget vanishes.
The Reformation: Scandal forces genuine change—abolish opaque “unprogrammed funds,” mandate public registries for insertion proponents, full disclosure under pain of graft charges. Consequence? Historic transparency win, but a fatal blow to the patronage machine that oils both congressional and executive gears. No more multibillion slush funds for loyalists.

Prophetic Warning: A Nation Drowning in Denial

Mga kababayan, this isn’t just another Manila scandal—it’s the definitive test. If the Marcos administration clings to Castro’s feeble “hearsay” shield and stonewalls Lacson’s probe, it won’t just lose public trust; it’ll confirm what cynics like me have long suspected: No institution in this archipelago—from Palace to Senate to DPWH—remains capable of self-cleaning.

The floods will come again, as sure as corruption. But next time, the water might not be the only thing rising. Inaction now means political drowning later—for Marcos, for his Cabinet, for the fragile illusion of governance.

Hanggang sa susunod na kwebanata,

–Barok