The Senate’s inquiry into the multibillion-peso flood control scandal opened Tuesday not with testimony but with fireworks, as Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson and Senator Rodante Marcoleta locked horns in a heated back-and-forth that immediately underscored the bitter politics behind the probe.
Marcoleta, who once chaired the Blue Ribbon Committee before Lacson assumed the helm, wasted no time in questioning the new chair’s impartiality. Citing Lacson’s recent interview with anchor Pinky Webb, where Lacson openly said he found former DPWH engineer Bryce Hernandez more credible as a potential state witness than Sarah Discaya, Marcoleta argued that the remark cast a shadow over the committee’s objectivity.
“The integrity and impartiality of this committee is foremost in my mind,” Marcoleta stressed, reading from the interview transcript. “Does the chairman have the prerogative to make judgment even before these proceedings begin?”
Lacson, visibly irritated, countered that his remarks were simply personal views expressed outside the Senate. “That is my perspective, my personal opinion. Don’t question my opinion,” he shot back, insisting that the committee’s work would stand on its own merit.
The tense exchange escalated as Marcoleta tried to press further, with Lacson repeatedly attempting to cut him off and push forward to the testimony of key whistleblower Henry Alcantara. At one point, both senators were talking over each other in a mix of English and Filipino, trading barbs about fairness and procedure.
“You are questioning my opinion. Away tayo kaagad dito,” Lacson snapped, before abruptly suspending the hearing.
The clash — even before witnesses could be heard — highlights the deep fissures in the Senate over how to handle the explosive allegations surrounding ghost flood-control projects, overpriced infrastructure, and alleged budget insertions tied to sitting lawmakers.
Instead of unity against corruption, the public was given a front-row seat to political jousting. For observers, the question lingers: is the Senate more interested in exposing the truth, or in defending its own ranks?