Not Cleared, Not Charged: Blue Ribbon Recommends Continued Evidence Gathering

Senate President Pro Tempore Ping Lacson, chair of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, said the revised partial report on the flood control controversy will recommend the continued gathering of evidence in relation to alleged links of former House Speaker and Leyte Representative Martin Romualdez.

At the same time, Lacson clarified a crucial point: Romualdez will not be included in the list of personalities to be recommended for preliminary investigation in the partial report, citing insufficient evidence at this stage.

The distinction is critical.

What the Committee Is Actually Saying

According to Lacson, the committee’s revised draft reflects two parallel positions:

1. There is not enough evidence to formally recommend Romualdez for preliminary investigation at this time.

2. The committee sees basis to continue gathering evidence related to his alleged connection to the controversy.

This means:

• No formal recommendation for prosecution (for now).

• No formal exoneration either.

It is a procedural middle ground—cautious but not dismissive.

Why This Distinction Matters

In Senate investigations, a recommendation for preliminary investigation signals that evidence has reached a threshold suggesting probable liability.

Choosing not to include a name in that list communicates one thing clearly: the threshold has not yet been met.

However, recommending continued evidence gathering signals something else: the inquiry is not closed.

In short, the committee is saying:
👉 Not enough evidence—yet.
👉 But not enough clarity to drop the line of inquiry.

Context: The Flood Control Controversy

The Blue Ribbon Committee has been probing alleged irregularities in flood control allocations, including:

• so-called “ghost projects,”

• questionable district allocations,

• discrepancies in documentation.

Given the scale of flood control budgets and the life-and-death consequences of infrastructure failures, the investigation carries high political weight.

Any mention of a former House Speaker naturally raises the stakes, especially considering institutional dynamics between the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Lacson’s Institutional Framing

Lacson has consistently emphasized that:

• The report remains partial and subject to revision.

• Findings must be anchored strictly on evidence.

• Recommendations cannot outrun documentation.

By clarifying that Romualdez is not included in the list for preliminary investigation, Lacson appears to be guarding against accusations of premature tagging or politicization.

At the same time, by keeping the evidence-gathering recommendation alive, he preserves the committee’s oversight authority.

Public Interpretation vs. Legislative Procedure

Public reactions often fall into binary camps:

• “He’s cleared.”

• “He’s implicated.”

The Senate’s position sits in between.

Legislative investigations are not criminal courts. They:

• collect facts,

• recommend actions,

• and influence accountability pathways.

They do not convict.

The nuance in this case reflects a deliberate effort to avoid overstating conclusions while maintaining investigative scope.

What Happens Next

If new evidence surfaces—through documents, testimonies, or inter-agency coordination—the committee may:

• update its report,

• amend recommendations,

• or escalate findings.

If no further substantiation appears, the matter may naturally narrow over time.

Either way, the process remains evidence-driven.

The Broader Accountability Question

The flood control issue has become symbolic of governance scrutiny. Public trust hinges not only on exposing wrongdoing—but also on avoiding overreach.

By declining to recommend preliminary investigation without sufficient evidence, the committee reinforces a principle: accountability must be proportionate to proof.

At the same time, continuing evidence gathering signals vigilance.

Quiet takeaway: In oversight, caution and persistence can coexist.

Politikanta Minute jab (clean):
Hindi sapat ang hinala—pero hindi rin tapos ang tanong.

Bible verse anchor:
Proverbs 18:17 — “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”