Kuryente: When Lacson’s Accusations Outrun The Evidence

Kuryente: When Lacson’s Accusations Outrun The Evidence

By Ram Montero – Contributing Writer – TheNATIONWEEK.com | October 5, 2026

From “Ghost Projects” to Reclamation, Has Investigation Become Political Retaliation?

There is a Filipino word for being fed information that turns out to be misleading, incomplete, or simply wrong: nakuryente. In journalism, it is humiliating because credibility is squandered when publication races ahead of verification. In politics, the consequences can be worse. Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson has built his reputation precisely on the claim that he does not speak without “resibo.” Yet his escalating campaign against Taguig increasingly raises an uncomfortable question: Has the celebrated investigator allowed accusation to run ahead of proof?

Consider what happened when Department of Public Works and Highways Secretary Vince Dizon appeared before the Senate. Asked whether the DPWH had identified a ghost project in Taguig among projects conclusively established as such, Dizon answered that there was none. DPWH Undersecretary Ricardo Bernabe III added that the agency had listed 107 Taguig projects and that all 107 had documented accomplishments. For a campaign portraying Taguig as fertile ground for ghost infrastructure, those statements were hardly convenient.

Lacson immediately fought back. He said Dizon had contradicted his own engineers and suggested that the secretary’s memory had become “clouded.” Lacson cited preliminary DPWH inspection reports involving projects whose physical presence inspectors had difficulty validating, as well as an AI-assisted analysis that flagged visually similar billing photographs. But therein lies the critical distinction: a red flag is not a finding of guilt, an anomaly requiring validation is not automatically a ghost project, and an inability to validate something during an inspection is not necessarily proof that it never existed.

Dizon subsequently clarified precisely that point. He explained that his Senate answer concerned the DPWH’s conclusively established ghost projects nationwide and that none of those confirmed cases was in Taguig. He acknowledged that several Taguig projects remained under investigation but stressed that they still required documentary cross-checking and on-site verification. His advice could not have been clearer: do not jump to conclusions while the investigation is continuing. Lacson himself then acknowledged that preliminary findings do not automatically prove a project was “ghosted.”

That concession is devastating to any narrative of certainty. Lacson had gone so far as to question a Taguig project whose billing-photo coordinates reportedly pointed some 600 kilometers away to Leyte, asking, “Since when has Taguig been located in Leyte?” Certainly, that discrepancy deserves investigation. But a faulty geotag can establish a discrepancy; by itself, it does not establish that an entire physical project is fictitious, much less prove that a particular politician stole from it. When Lacson later said he was not concluding that the questioned project was ghosted, the boundary between explosive public accusation and unfinished verification became impossible to ignore.

In other words, the great danger of kuryente is not necessarily that every underlying concern is false. It is that preliminary information gets transformed into a conclusion before the evidence warrants one. Suspicion becomes allegation; allegation becomes headline; headline becomes presumed guilt. By the time investigators complete their work, reputations may already have been sentenced by social media. That is exactly why a senator with Lacson’s investigative experience should be the first to distinguish a lead from proof.

Then came another Taguig controversy: alleged illegal reclamation along Laguna Lake. Lacson publicized footage of a multi-agency inspection and described continuing activity as “impunity,” saying that “somebody feels he is above the law.” Yet Taguig responded with a specific factual denial: the property shown, it said, was not land presently possessed or used by the city, but a parcel claimed by private individuals and a neighborhood association. Taguig further declared that it had issued no permit or authority to the alleged private owners.

That denial does not automatically prove Taguig right. But neither does Lacson’s video automatically prove Taguig guilty. This is precisely where responsible investigation begins rather than ends. Who owns the land? Who ordered the filling? Who financed it? Who delivered the materials? What permits existed? Which official, if any, intervened? These are evidentiary questions. Until they are answered, geography cannot substitute for culpability: something happening on the Taguig side of Laguna Lake does not by itself establish that the Taguig City government ordered it.

Taguig therefore delivered perhaps the most important rebuke in this controversy: “The fight against corruption must always be a fight for truth—not a contest of accusations.” That sentence goes beyond Taguig and Lacson. It states the standard by which every anti-corruption crusade should be judged. Investigators should follow evidence wherever it leads. But the immense moral authority attached to fighting corruption cannot become a license to imply guilt first and search for conclusive evidence afterward.

More troubling is the appearance that the machinery of government is becoming entangled with what is undeniably a political feud. Lacson has submitted material involving Taguig projects to the Office of the Ombudsman and has called for the Ombudsman, PRA, LRA, LLDA, DENR, and DPWH to coordinate in examining the reclamation issue. There is nothing improper about asking competent agencies to investigate credible evidence. But there would be something profoundly disturbing if referrals, inspections, or institutional pressure were used—or even appeared to be used—as instruments for settling political scores.

That concern cannot be separated from the open warfare between Lacson and Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano. Cayetano has accused Lacson of behaving as investigator, prosecutor, and judge rolled into one and of trying to dictate the direction of inquiries involving Taguig. Lacson dismissed the attack by questioning Cayetano’s credibility. Political insults aside, the institutional issue is serious: the Ombudsman is not anybody’s attack dog. The DPWH is not anybody’s private investigative bureau. Regulatory agencies are not weapons to be aimed at one’s adversaries. They belong to the Republic.

Indeed, Lacson himself told Dizon to beware of a possible “cover-up,” warning that officials could incur criminal liability after Dizon’s Senate testimony did not comport with Lacson’s interpretation of the preliminary reports. Think about the institutional implications. An agency head gives an answer under oath that does not support the strongest version of a senator’s accusation; he is then publicly warned about criminal exposure for a possible cover-up. Whatever Lacson’s intention, that sequence creates an appearance of pressure that a serious anti-corruption advocate should be especially careful to avoid.

Lacson says his credibility has already been established and that he does not make exposés without complete receipts. But credibility is not self-authenticating. A politician’s past reputation cannot transform preliminary inspection findings into final findings. Nor can the phrase “may resibo” relieve anyone of the obligation to establish what those receipts actually prove. If the evidence establishes ghost projects, prosecute those responsible. If it establishes illegal reclamation, prosecute whoever ordered and benefited from it. But if it does not establish the personal culpability being insinuated, say so just as loudly.

This is why kuryente is such an apt warning. The most dangerous bum steer is often not a completely fabricated document. It is a genuine document stripped of qualification, a preliminary finding presented as final, a suspicious photograph promoted as proof, or an unresolved discrepancy wrapped in the language of certainty. The remedy is not to stop investigating Taguig. The remedy is to investigate harder, independently and without political choreography—and then allow the Ombudsman and other institutions to reach their own conclusions without intimidation from either political camp.

Ping Lacson has spent much of his public life demanding that others answer to evidence. Now he must demonstrate that he respects evidence even when it refuses to cooperate with his narrative. Investigate Taguig. Investigate Cayetano. Investigate every contractor and every questionable project. But do not weaponize suspicion, do not turn independent institutions into instruments of political revenge, and do not mistake a red flag for a conviction. Otherwise, the senator who prides himself on never being caught without a receipt risks suffering the most humiliating fate for any self-styled master investigator: siya mismo ang makuryente.