“Why are you so protective of the Discayas?” Senator Panfilo Lacson asked Rodante Marcoleta during Tuesday’s Senate Blue Ribbon hearing.
The question landed like a thunderclap—and it wasn’t just for the record. It was the same question millions of Filipinos were already asking from their living rooms, flood-stricken homes, and workplaces: Why is Senator Marcoleta bending over backwards to defend a couple at the center of the multi-billion peso flood control scandal?
Sarah and Pacifico “Curlee” Discaya are not minor players in this controversy. They are at the core of a scheme alleged to have bled public funds dry. Ghost projects. Half-built bridges. Drainage systems that failed the very moment rains poured. Communities left submerged. Businesses shuttered. Families devastated. The accusations are staggering in both scale and consequence.
Yet in that hearing, the only time Senator Marcoleta truly bristled with passion was not in defending the people, not in demanding accountability, but in speaking up for the Discayas.
When DOJ Secretary Boying Remulla explained that potential state witnesses should at least return ill-gotten wealth as an act of good faith, Marcoleta pounced: “Is that part of the law?”
With respect, Senator—it doesn’t take a law to know what’s right. It doesn’t take a statute to understand that money allegedly taken from public coffers belongs to the people. This is not legal hair-splitting. This is about decency and accountability. But apparently, Marcoleta chose to argue otherwise. His words carried a message that rang uncomfortably across the country: let them hold on to the billions until the courts say otherwise.
And if that logic prevails, here’s the lesson: steal—or be accused of stealing—on a massive scale, and the State might just protect you. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens are left to patch up flood-damaged homes, rebuild lost livelihoods, and mourn lives cut short by disasters that should never have happened.
The indecency is hard to ignore. Senator Tito Sotto put it bluntly: the Discayas are reportedly so wealthy they could buy a Rolls Royce and still afford an army of private guards. They don’t need witness protection. What they need is to face the music, answer the allegations, and, if proven guilty, return what was taken.
But Marcoleta’s stance would have taxpayers footing the bill for the Discayas’ safety. Picture that: families who cannot even afford to repair a flooded roof would be made to pay for the security of those accused of siphoning billions. It is not just unjust—it is an insult.
And the testimony being offered? Full of holes. The Discayas conveniently recall names only from 2022 onward. Before that? Silence. Convenient forgetfulness. As Sotto said, testimony should be “tell-all,” not “tell-half.” Yet Marcoleta seems content with incomplete stories, so long as the couple remains shielded.
So again, the question must be repeated, louder than before: Why, Senator Marcoleta? Why is your passion reserved only for the Discayas? Why stay silent on others implicated, yet fiercely protective of this one couple?
The answer may not be spoken in the Senate, but it resounds among the people: Marcoleta has chosen a side—but as it seems, it does not appear to be the side of the public.
Is this governance? Or a betrayal of trust?
Let’s be very clear: the Filipino people are not obligated to carry an umbrella over the heads of those accused of draining public funds. We are not obliged to bankroll their comfort, their safety, or their escape from accountability. If they fear for their lives, let them spend their own resources on protection. Not one more centavo of taxpayer money should be wasted shielding them.
So the question lingers, unanswered and unavoidable: Why is Marcoleta seemingly so protective of the Discayas? Until he comes clean, until he explains his loyalty, the truth will only grow louder.
Defend the law but at the same time stay morally upright. Only then can he say he is speaking for the people. But as it is, he appears to be protecting the Discayas. And in doing so, Senator Marcoleta risks betraying the very nation he was elected to serve.
