The flood-control scandal has once again put the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in the national spotlight. At a time when Filipinos are demanding answers about how billions of pesos meant to protect communities from floods were spent, questions have also emerged about who should lead the investigation. For me, if a senator’s name has surfaced in the controversy—even if the allegations remain unproven—that senator should voluntarily step aside from heading the hearings.
I have always believed that public investigations are not merely about finding facts; they are also about convincing the public that the search for truth is fair. A Senate hearing is not a courtroom, yet it carries enormous influence over public opinion. The chairman directs the proceedings, decides who gets recognized, and shapes the tone of the inquiry. Because of that power, even the appearance of a possible conflict of interest can cast a long shadow over the entire process. A referee does not have to be guilty of cheating for spectators to question a game; sometimes, the mere perception of partiality is enough to make people doubt the outcome.
What troubles me most is that the flood control issue is not just another political controversy. It involves projects funded by taxpayers who expect roads to remain passable, bridges to stand firm, and communities to stay dry when heavy rains arrive. In a country repeatedly battered by typhoons and floods, flood-control funds are not just abstract numbers in government documents. They represent homes spared from destruction, crops saved from ruin, and lives protected from danger. When questions arise about such funds, the investigation must be beyond reproach from the very beginning.
I do not say this because I presume anyone’s guilt. Allegations are not convictions, and fairness requires that every accused person be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. In fact, that principle is exactly why voluntary inhibition makes sense. Stepping aside from leading an investigation is not an admission of wrongdoing. It is often the clearest way of saying, “Let the facts speak for themselves without my presence becoming a distraction.”
There is also a practical reason. The moment a chairman becomes part of the story, attention shifts away from the evidence and toward the chairman himself. Questions that should focus on contracts, budgets, project implementation, and accountability become mixed with questions about the investigator. The hearing then risks turning into a mirror facing another mirror—an endless reflection of accusations and counteraccusations. Meanwhile, the public is left waiting for the answers it sought in the first place.
I find it ironic that many of the strongest investigations in history gained credibility not because investigators possessed extraordinary powers, but because they maintained a visible distance from the subjects they examined. The public is often willing to accept painful conclusions when it trusts the process that produced them. But even the most carefully documented findings can struggle for acceptance when doubts linger about the independence of those conducting the inquiry. Truth may stand on its own feet, but credibility gives it a stronger voice.
Filipinos have become highly sensitive to issues involving public funds, and understandably so. They have watched too many scandals erupt, too many promises made, and too many inquiries fade into political theater. That is why I believe leaders should hold themselves to a higher standard than what the law strictly requires. The law may not compel a senator to inhibit himself under these circumstances, but public service is not measured solely by legal compliance. Sometimes integrity is demonstrated by what one willingly chooses not to do.
What matters most is not who occupies the chairman’s seat but whether the nation receives a thorough, credible, and impartial accounting of what happened to the flood control funds. I would rather see the investigation led by someone whose independence is beyond question, so that every finding stands on solid ground. When public confidence is already fragile, the wisest course is often the simplest one: remove every unnecessary doubt and let the truth take center stage.
