The Investigation Limited to Three Districts of Bulacan

The Investigation Limited to Three Districts of Bulacan 

The motu proprio inquiries into anomalous flood control projects were initially national in scope but have, in practice, concentrated investigative energy on discrete geographic nodes where alleged irregularities are most glaring. Limiting the current investigative mandate to three districts of Bulacan constitutes a strategic narrowing of focus that both constrains and concentrates the inquiry’s ethical and forensic possibilities. Bulacan’s towns and river systems have featured repeatedly in public hearings and site inspections that revealed apparent ghost projects, absent infrastructure, and overlapping contract allocations—facts that have animated legislative and executive responses in recent weeks. This localized limitation affords the investigative body the operational clarity to pursue documentary chains, financial trails, and material verifications within a bounded field site, while also producing political and symbolic consequences for actors whose names and alleged actions intersect with the province’s projects. 

Predicament: Institutional, Evidentiary, and Political Constraints 

The first predicament posed by limiting the probe to three districts is institutional: legislative investigatory bodies must balance transparency with procedural fairness, yet concentrated hearings create intense media and public scrutiny in which presiding officers’ public utterances can reverberate across both hearing rooms and broadcast audiences. The Blue Ribbon chair—in this reflective scenario labeled Sen. Larson—faces the twin obligations of ensuring admissible evidence and managing the performative expectations of a national audience that conflates televised inquiry with judicial outcomes. A second predicament is evidentiary: the ghost-project allegations are entangled with disappearing-message claims, interlocking corporate directorships among contractors, and the alleged use of third-party licenses—conditions that complicate chain-of-custody verification and invite contestation over authenticity and provenance of digital artifacts. Third is political constraint: named persons purportedly connected to budget insertions or claimed beneficiaries—most notably Rep. Zaldy Co and Congressman (Speaker) Martin Romualdez—have political resources, transnational mobility, and institutional positions that complicate compulsory processes like subpoena, compelled appearance, or immediate repatriation; their absence or contestations can stall hearings and shift focus from structural diagnostics to perimeter skirmishes over personalities. 

Potentials: Focused Forensics, Community-Centered Evidence, and Legislative Reform 

Despite constraints, the tri-district focus yields significant potentials. A bounded geographic mandate enables concentrated forensic methodologies: coordinated site inspections, asset-mapping of contractors’ footprints, cross-referencing of voucher and disbursement records, and targeted bank-account freezes and forensic audits—actions already evidenced by investigative agencies’ moves to examine interlocking contractor directors and freeze accounts in implicated cases. Second, the locality-based approach makes possible deeper, trauma-informed engagement with affected communities whose material vulnerability is the ultimate indicator of accountability failure; documenting lived impacts—recurring flooding in neighborhoods promised mitigation—produces moral weight for legislative remedies and reparative budgets. Third, the focus creates an opportunity to pilot legislative and administrative reforms—improved procurement transparency, mandatory feasibility and location verifications, and a chain-of-custody protocol for project images and geotagged inspections—that, if successful in Bulacan, can be scaled nationally. 

Sen. Larson as Chairman: Ethical Stewardship and Procedural Posture 

Placing Sen. Larson at the helm reframes the inquiry around questions of ethical stewardship, evidentiary discipline, and public rhetorical restraint. The chair’s responsibilities are threefold: to pursue verifiable receipts; to protect due process; and to manage the epistemic boundary between opinion and adjudicative posture. The chair’s public statements have become instrumental to how hearings are perceived; when a chairman’s interview reaches the same audiences as the televised hearings, such extrajudicial commentary functions not as neutral background but as a framing device that shapes how evidence is interpreted and which narratives gain traction. Sen. Larson’s reflective posture should therefore emphasize strict evidentiary discipline—requesting original vouchers, bank records, and procurement files—and a calibrated media strategy that communicates procedural steps without prejudging outcomes. The chair must also ensure that any witness immunity, witness protection, or DOJ referrals are coordinated with prosecutorial authorities to translate legislative findings into viable criminal or administrative cases where warranted. 

Bringing Zaldy Co and Martin Romualdez into the Equation 

The investigative architecture must account for both proximate and distal actors. Proximate actors include district engineers, local implementers, and contractor principals; distal actors include legislators or budget proponents alleged to have been associated with insertions or named in testimonial threads. Two names require deliberate integration into the Bulacan tri-district investigation: Rep. Zaldy Co and Congressman Martin Romualdez. Sources and sworn statements presented during hearings and cross-committee inquiries have repeatedly connected the phenomena of budget insertions, bicameral small-group adjustments, and contractor behavior to networks that mention these persons—whether as direct actors or as names invoked by intermediaries and bagmen. The investigatory calculus must therefore distinguish between three evidentiary possibilities: (1) direct transactional evidence (receipts, bank transfers, documented correspondences) implicating the named individual; (2) intermediary invocation evidence where names were used by operators to secure cooperation or intimidation; and (3) misattribution or malicious naming that requires exculpatory processes. 

Operationalizing this distinction permits the chair to bring Zaldy Co and Martin Romualdez into the final equation responsibly. For Zaldy Co, documentation suggests substantial appropriations and proponent insertions in the budget cycles under his former committee purview, and public reporting notes that Co has been out of the country amid the controversies—creating exigent questions about compelled return and repatriation for testimony. For Martin Romualdez—whose institutional role and proximity to executive networks have been publicly discussed—the committee’s mandate should be to seek corroborative documentary linkages rather than rely on hearsay or name invocation alone; where contractors or witnesses assert that bagmen claimed to be operating for or on behalf of Romualdez, the committee should obtain chain-of-communication proof, supported by financial and metadata evidence. 

Speedy Repatriation: Legal Mechanisms and Political Realities 

The user’s interest in “speedy repatriation” of named individuals raises both legal and political questions. Legislatures can invoke subpoena power, travel-authority revocation, and coordination with immigration or law-enforcement agencies to require appearance, but such measures must be grounded in prima facie evidence of relevance and must respect legal protections against extraterritorial compulsion. A calibrated strategy for repatriation includes: (1) issuance of formal invitations and subpoenas with clearly delineated subject-matter limits and legal basis; (2) deployment of House and Senate ethics and administrative levers such as travel-authority revocation for members whose attendance is required and justified; (3) coordination with the DOJ and the Department of Foreign Affairs for diplomatic facilitation when individuals claim medical travel or residency abroad; and (4) contingencies for compelled testimony via electronic means where physical repatriation is delayed. The committee should also avoid theatrical demands for return that lack legal underpinning, as such rhetorical moves can confer procedural vulnerabilities and allow targets to litigate on jurisdictional grounds. 

The Right Angle: From Named Actors to Structural Accountability 

The most productive angle for the chair is to pivot the narrative from personalities to systems without ignoring individual accountability. Naming Co or Romualdez must not displace thorough institutional diagnosis: how were unprogrammed funds reclassified, who in the procurement chain permitted first-hand location attestation to be bypassed, and which corporate networks show recurrent directorships or shell-company patterns that map onto the alleged ghost projects? Investigative work should thus combine micro-level forensic tasks—geotagged site verification, contractor-director linkage analysis, bank-transaction reconstructions—with macro-level policy interventions—tightening bicameral insertion protocols, establishing mandatory geotagged progress billing, and creating an independent audit window for high-risk infrastructure disbursements. This dual strategy prevents the probe from becoming a spectacle that simply alternates between naming and denial, instead transforming it into a vector for administrative reform and criminal accountability where warranted. 

Reflexivity and the Ethics of Representation 

A reflective investigative posture acknowledges the asymmetry of harm: affected Bulakenyo communities suffer repeated flooding and dispossession when promised infrastructure is absent or defective. The committee’s final accounting should therefore include reparative recommendations—prioritized reconstruction, transparent re-tendering processes for remedial works, and community-led monitoring mechanisms. Ethically, the chair must resist the instrumentalization of victims for political theater; hearings should foreground community testimony as evidence of harm and as guidance for remediation, not as raw spectacle that fuels moral panic without policy follow-through. The chair’s public statements and the committee’s written reports must model this reflexivity, explicitly distinguishing between allegation, corroboration, and adjudicated finding. 

Conclusion: A Situated, Principled Inquiry 

Limiting the investigation to three districts of Bulacan creates both an opportunity for concentrated forensic rigor and a risk of politicized narrowing. Under Sen. Larson’s chairmanship, the inquiry should operationalize careful evidentiary triage, integrate named actors such as Rep. Zaldy Co and Congressman Martin Romualdez through documentary and transactional verification rather than solely by testimonial invocation, and pursue legally defensible mechanisms for repatriation where necessary. Most importantly, the inquiry must move beyond naming toward structural remedies: improved procurement transparency, mandatory geolocation and inspection protocols, independent audit triggers, and reparative actions for affected communities. Only a situated, principled investigation—one that balances the legal prerogatives of accountability with the ethical duties of care for victims—can translate the Bulacan hearings into meaningful institutional reform and civic repair.

---

Translated:

Imbestigasyong Nakatuon sa Tatlong Distrito ng Bulacan

Ang motu proprio na pagsisiyasat sa mga anomalya ng flood control projects ay orihinal na may nasyonal na saklaw ngunit sa praktika ay nakatuon sa ilang heograpikong punto kung saan pinakamalinaw ang mga alegasyon. Ang paglimita ng kasalukuyang mandato ng imbestigasyon sa tatlong distrito ng Bulacan ay isang estratehikong pagpili na parehong naglilimita at nagpokus sa mga posibilidad ng etikal at forensikong pagsusuri. Madalas lumabas sa mga pagdinig at inspeksyon sa lugar ang mga ulat na nagpapakita ng pagkakaroon ng ghost projects, kawalan ng pisikal na imprastruktura, at magkakapatong na alokasyon ng kontrata—mga datos na naging sentro ng pananaliksik ng lehislatura at ehekutibo kamakailan.

Ang lokal na pagtuon na ito ay nagbibigay ng operasyonal na kalinawan para sundan ang dokumentaryong mga kadena, financial trails, at materyal na beripikasyon sa isang hangganang site, kasabay ng pagpaparami ng pulitikal at simbolikong implikasyon para sa mga aktor na ang mga pangalan at alegasyon ay nakakabit sa mga proyekto sa lalawigan.

---

Predikamento: Institusyonal, Ebidensiyaryo, at Politikal

Ang unang suliranin sa paglimitang ito ay institusyonal: kailangang timbangin ng lehislatibong imbestigatoryong katawan ang pagiging transparent at ang proseso ng patas na pagdinig, subalit ang masinsinang pagtuon sa iilang distrito ay lumilikha ng matinding media at pampublikong atensiyon kung saan ang mga pahayag ng tagapangulo ay mabilis na kumakalat at maaaring makaapekto sa opinyon ng masa. Bilang tagapangulo sa senaryong ito, si Senador Lacson ay may dobleng tungkulin—garantiyahan ang paggamit ng katanggap-tanggap na ebidensya at pamahalaan ang mga inaasahan ng isang pambansang madla na madalas na itinuturing ang telebisyong pagdinig bilang hatol na panghukuman.

Pangalawa, may ebidensiyaryong predikamento: ang mga alegasyon ng ghost projects ay nakalilito dahil sa mga nawawalang mensahe, magkakabit-kabit na direktoryo ng mga korporasyon ng mga kontratista, at diumano’y paggamit ng lisensya ng ikatlong partido—mga kondisyon na nagpapahirap sa pagtiyak ng chain of custody at nagbubukas ng mga pagtatalo tungkol sa autenticity ng mga digital na artepakto.

Pangatlo, umiiral ang pulitikal na hadlang: ang mga pinangalanang tauhan na pinaghihinalaan na may kinalaman sa budget insertions o mga benepisyaryo—pinakamahalaga rito sina Rep. Zaldy Co at Congressman Martin Romualdez—ay may kakayahang politikal, transnasyonal na mobilidad, at institusyonal na posisyon na nagpapahirap sa pagpapatupad ng subpoena, sapilitang pagdalo, o agarang repatriation; ang kanilang kawalan o pagtutol ay maaaring magpabagal ng pagdinig at ilipat ang atensiyon mula sa istruktural na pagsusuri tungo sa mga labanan sa palibot ng personalidad.

---

Potensyal: Nakapokus na Forensika, Komunidad-Sentrong Ebidensya, at Reporma Lehislatibo

Sa kabila ng mga limitasyon, nagbubukas ang tri-district na saklaw ng ilang mahalagang potensyal. Ang hangganang heograpikal ay nagpapahintulot ng mas masusi at nakatuong forensikong pamamaraan: magkakordinadong site inspections, asset-mapping ng mga footprint ng kontratista, pagtutugma ng voucher at talaan ng disbursement, at target na bank-account freezes at forensic audits—mga hakbang na bahagi na ng ilang kilos na isinagawa ng mga ahensya.

Ang lokal na pagtuon ay nagbibigay-daan para sa mas malalim at trauma-informed na pakikipag-ugnayan sa mga apektadong komunidad; ang dokumentasyon ng lived impacts—pagbaha na paulit-ulit sa mga kapitbahayan na ipinangakoang mababawasan—ay nagpapalakas ng moral na bigat para sa lehislatibong remedyo at pondo para sa reparasyon.

Nagiging testbed din ang Bulacan para sa pilot legislative at administrative reforms: pagpapabuti ng procurement transparency, mandatory feasibility at location verification, at chain-of-custody protocol para sa project images at geotagged inspections—mga mekanismong maaaring i-scale sa pambansang antas kung maging matagumpay.

---

Sen. Lacson Bilang Tagapangulo: Etikal na Pangangalaga at Procedural na Paninindigan

Ang paglalagay kay Sen. Lacson bilang tagapangulo ay naglalagay ng pokus sa mga tanong ng etikal na pangangalaga, disiplinang ebidensiyaryo, at publiko-retorikal na pagpiposisyon. Ang tungkulin ng tagapangulo ay tatlong bahagi: magsagawa ng beripikableng pagsusuri ng resibo at talaan; protektahan ang due process; at pamahalaan ang epistemic boundary sa pagitan ng opinyon at pormal na paghuhusga. Kapag ang pahayag ng tagapangulo sa media ay umaabot sa parehong manonood ng televised hearings, ang labas na komentaryo ay nagiging framing device na humuhubog kung paano binibigyang-kahulugan ang mga ebidensya at kung anong salaysay ang nagkakaroon ng traction.

Dapat ipakita ni Sen. Lacson ang posture ng deliberatibong pag-iingat: humiling ng orihinal na vouchers, bank records, at procurement files; magpatupad ng maingat na media strategy na nagpapaliwanag ng procedural steps nang hindi nagpaprayorisa ng konklusyon; at tiyaking ang anumang paghingi ng witness immunity, witness protection, o referrals sa DOJ ay naka-ugnay at koordinado upang ang mga natuklasan ng lehislatura ay maisalin sa posibleng administratibo o kriminal na usapin.

---

Pagsasama kina Zaldy Co at Martin Romualdez sa Imbestigasyon

Dapat sanayin ng arkitektura ng imbestigasyon ang kapwa proximate at distal na aktor. Ang proximate aktor ay kinabibilangan ng mga district engineers, lokal na implementer, at mga prinsipal ng kontratista; ang distal aktor ay ang mga mambabatas o proponents ng budget na iniuugnay ng testimonya at dokumento. Dalawang pangalan ang kailangan ng maingat at responsableng integrasyon sa tri-district na pagsusuri: si Rep. Zaldy Co at si Congressman Martin Romualdez.

Kailangang gawin ng komite ang malinaw na distinksiyon sa pagitan ng tatlong uri ng ebidensya: (1) direktang transaksiyonal na ebidensya (resibo, bank transfers, dokumentadong komunikasyon) na nag-uugnay sa pinangalanang indibidwal; (2) ebidensiyang nagpapakita ng paggamit ng pangalan ng isang indibidwal ng mga intermediary para makakuha ng kooperasyon o takot; at (3) maling pagbanggit o malisyosong pagpapangalan na nangangailangan ng prosesong exculpatory.

Sa kaso ni Zaldy Co, may mga dokumentong nagpapakita ng mga alokasyon at insertion sa budget cycles sa ilalim ng kanyang dating committee purview, at may mga ulat ding nagsasabing siya ay nasa ibang bansa habang umiinit ang kontrobersiya—ito ay lumilikha ng agaran at lehitimong katanungan tungkol sa sapilitang pagbalik para sa testimonya. Para kay Martin Romualdez—dahil sa kanyang institusyonal na papel at publikong pag-uugnay sa ilang executive networks—dapat ituon ng komite ang paghahanap ng corroborative documentary linkages sa halip na umasa lamang sa hearsay; kung ang mga kontratista o saksi ay nagsasabi na may mga bagmen na nagpahayag na kumikilos para sa kanya, dapat hanapin ng komite ang chain-of-communication proof, suportado ng financial at metadata evidence.

---

Speedy Repatriation: Legal na Mekanismo at Politikal na Realidad

Ang interes sa "speedy repatriation" ng mga pinangalanang indibidwal ay nagbubukas ng parehong legal at pulitikal na usapin. Maaaring gumamit ang lehislatura ng subpoena power, revocation ng travel authority, at koordinasyon sa immigration at law-enforcement agencies para pilitin ang pagdalo, ngunit ang mga hakbang na ito ay kailangang nakabatay sa prima facie na ebidensya ng kaugnayan at dapat igalang ang legal na proteksyon laban sa labas-teritoryal na sapilitang obligasyon.

Ang maingat na estratehiya para sa repatriation ay maaaring magsama ng: (1) pagpapadala ng pormal na imbitasyon at subpoena na may malinaw na saklaw at ligal na batayan; (2) paggamit ng internal ethics at administrative levers tulad ng pag-withdraw ng travel authority para sa mga miyembrong may lehitimong pangangailangan na dumalo; (3) koordinasyon sa DOJ at Department of Foreign Affairs para sa diplomatic facilitation kapag ang mga indibidwal ay nagsasabing nasa ibang bansa dahil sa medikal o residensiyal na dahilan; at (4) contingency para sa compelled testimony sa pamamagitan ng electronic means kung mabagal ang pisikal na repatriation.

Dapat iwasan ng komite ang mga theatrical na utos sa pagbalik na walang matibay na ligal na basehan, dahil ang mga ito ay maaaring magbigay-daan sa mga tinatarget na gamitin ang hurisdiksiyonal na paghamon bilang diskarte.

---

Tamang Anggulo: Mula sa Pagbanggit ng Mga Pinangalan Hanggang sa Istruktural na Pananagutan

Ang pinakamainam na taktika para sa tagapangulo ay ilipat ang sentro ng naratibo mula sa personalidad tungo sa mga sistemang nagpapaandar ng anomalya, nang hindi kinakailangang balewalain ang indibidwal na pananagutan. Ang pagbabanggit kina Co o Romualdez ay hindi dapat pumalit sa masinsinang institusyonal na diagnosis: paano na-reclassify ang hindi naka-programang pondo, sino sa procurement chain ang nagpalubag upang mawala ang aktwal na location attestation, at aling mga korporatif na network ang nagpapakita ng paulit-ulit na direktoryo o shell-company patterns na tumutugma sa mga iniuugnay na ghost projects?

Dapat pagsamahin ng imbestigasyon ang micro-level forensic tasks—geotagged site verification, pagsusuri ng ugnayan ng mga direktor ng kontratista, at rekonstruksyon ng mga bank transaction—sa macro-level policy interventions—pagpapahigpit ng bicameral insertion protocols, mandatory geotagged progress billing, at paglikha ng independent audit triggers para sa high-risk infrastructure disbursements. Ang dual na diskarte na ito ay pipigil sa pag-iikot lamang sa pagitan ng pagbanggit at pagtanggi, at magpapalakas sa pag-usad tungo sa administratibong reporma at posibleng kriminal na pananagutan kung kinakailangan.

---

Reflexivity at Etika ng Representasyon

Ang isang reflexive na postura sa imbestigasyon ay kumikilala sa asymmetry ng pinsala: ang mga Bulakenyo na apektado ay nakararanas ng paulit-ulit na pagbaha at pagkawala ng tahanan kapag ang ipinangakong imprastruktura ay wala o depekto. Kaya, ang pinal na akawnting ng komite ay dapat maglaman ng rekomendasyong reparatorio—prayoridad na rekonstruksyon, transparent na muling pag-tender para sa remedial works, at community-led monitoring mechanisms.

Sa etikal na aspeto, dapat iwasan ng tagapangulo ang instrumentalization ng mga biktima bilang pampulitikang teatro; ang pagdinig ay dapat gamitin upang bigyang-diin ang testimonyang komunita bilang ebidensya ng pinsala at bilang gabay para sa remedyo, hindi bilang palabas na humuhubog ng moral panic nang walang kasunod na polisiya. Ang mga pahayag ng tagapangulo at ang nakasulat na ulat ng komite ay dapat malinaw na magtala ng distinksiyon sa pagitan ng alegasyon, pagkumpirma, at pormal na hatol.

---

Konklusyon: Nakapuwesto at Prinsipiyadong Pagsisiyasat

Ang paglimita ng imbestigasyon sa tatlong distrito ng Bulacan ay nag-aalok ng pagkakataon para sa masinsinang forensikong disiplina ngunit may kaakibat na panganib ng politisadong pagkipot. Sa ilalim ng pamumuno ni Sen. Lacson, ang imbestigasyon ay dapat magpatupad ng maingat na ebidensiyaryong triage, integrasyon ng pinangalanang aktor gaya nina Rep. Zaldy Co at Congressman Martin Romualdez sa pamamagitan ng dokumentaryo at transaksiyonal na verifikasyon sa halip na puro testimonial invocation, at pag-usad ng ligal at makatarungang mekanismo para sa repatriation kung kinakailangan.

Higit sa lahat, dapat lumipat ang komite mula sa simpleng pagbabanggit ng mga pangalan tungo sa istruktural na remedyo: pagpapabuti ng procurement transparency, mandatory geolocation at inspection protocols, independent audit triggers, at reparatorio para sa mga komunidad. Ang isang nakapuwesto at prinsipiyadong pagsisiyasat—na bumabalanse sa ligal na prerogatif ng pananagutan at etikal na tungkulin ng pag-aalaga sa mga biktima—lamang ang makapagpapalitaw ng tunay na reporma institusyonal at pampublikong pag-ayos sa Bulacan.

If you like my concept research, writing explorations, and/or simple writings please support me by sending me a coffee treat at my paypal amielgeraldroldan.paypal.me 

Amiel Gerald Roldan  

I'm trying to complement my writings with helpful inputs from AI through writing. Bear with me as I am treating this blog as repositories and drafts.   

please comment and tag if you like my compilations visit www.amielroldan.blogspot.com or www.amielroldan.wordpress.com 

and comments at

amiel_roldan@outlook.com

amielgeraldroldan@gmail.com

If you like my works, concept, reflective research, writing explorations,  and/or simple writings please support me by sending 

me a coffee treat at GCash/GXI 09053027965 or http://paypal.me/AmielGeraldRoldan

Amiel Gerald A. Roldan: a multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, academic writing, and trauma-informed mythmaking. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and speculative cosmology, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical collaboration.

Recent show at ILOMOCA

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD/