The controversy surrounding the flood control projects continues to escalate as critics accuse the Marcos administration of using the investigation not for justice, but for political advantage. While the President publicly claims that the government is committed to uncovering corruption, analysts argue that only those outside his political circle face consequences—while allies remain untouched.
According to political observers, the pattern is becoming clear: the investigation moves swiftly when it involves officials who are not aligned with the administration, yet slows down or completely stops when questions arise about Marcos-friendly agencies and contractors. This selective approach has fueled growing skepticism about the true purpose of the probe.
Critics say this strategy allows the administration to present itself as being tough on corruption, while in reality turning the investigation into a shield for insiders and a weapon against non-allies. As billions of pesos continue to flow into flood control budgets every year, many Filipinos fear that the real masterminds remain protected.
Another major criticism is the political narrative being built around Vice President Sara Duterte. Instead of focusing on the massive corruption allegations tied to national infrastructure spending, some political operators are allegedly pushing narratives that paint Duterte as the new problem. Analysts argue that this tactic conveniently diverts the public’s attention from deeper issues involving agencies directly under the administration.
This shifting of blame, critics say, is not accidental. By stirring controversy around the Vice President, attention is redirected away from long-standing corruption hotspots—particularly those involving big contractors, local dynasties, and national officials who are closely connected to the current leadership.
Many Filipinos are now questioning whether the flood control probe is truly about accountability or simply another episode of political maneuvering. If investigations are only used to punish non-allies, the message becomes clear: corruption is tolerated as long as one is aligned with the right side of power.
For good governance advocates, the demand remains simple and consistent—apply the law equally. Without impartial investigations, the fight against corruption becomes nothing more than a political show, and the billions lost to questionable flood control projects will never be recovered.
As public pressure grows, the administration faces a crucial choice: prove that the investigation is real, or confirm the growing belief that selective justice has become the new political weapon of the day.
