“TAGUIG IS SOMETHING ELSE”: LACSON SUBMITS INFRASTRUCTURE EVIDENCE TO OMBUDSMAN
“Taguig Is Something Else”: Lacson Submits Infrastructure Evidence to Ombudsman
By Politikanta Minute | July 29, 2026
Senator Ping Lacson has submitted evidence to the Office of the Ombudsman concerning alleged irregularities involving infrastructure projects in Taguig City, escalating scrutiny over billions of pesos worth of government-funded projects in the city.
According to Lacson, the materials submitted include official data gathered from government websites, as well as information provided by sources that could potentially be used in an Ombudsman investigation.
The senator also alleged that questionable projects in Taguig may have involved what he described as “old and new tricks,” including alleged ghost projects, double appropriations, and the reuse of photographs from previously completed contracts.
Lacson's allegations, however, remain subject to investigation and verification by the appropriate authorities.
“Taguig Is Something Else”
Lacson described the situation in Taguig as significantly concerning.
In a post on X, he compared the situation to the controversy surrounding flood control projects in Bulacan.
According to the senator, Taguig allegedly involved several different methods that should be examined by investigators.
Among the allegations he raised were:
An allegedly illegal reclamation project presented as slope protection structures;
Alleged ghost projects;
Alleged double appropriations;
The alleged reuse of photographs from previous and completed contracts to support new projects.
Lacson described these as examples of “old and new tricks.”
He also alleged that the projects were controlled by one person and that some of the transactions dated back as far as 2019.
These claims have not yet been established as fact through a final investigation or court ruling.
₱14.4 Billion in Infrastructure Projects
One of the biggest figures highlighted by Lacson was the reported total value of infrastructure projects in Taguig City.
According to the senator, infrastructure projects in the city from 2020 to 2025 amounted to approximately ₱14.4 billion.
Lacson argued that the scale of the spending warrants closer scrutiny.
The issue is not simply the amount of money involved.
The concern is whether the projects were properly funded, properly implemented, and properly documented.
If projects were completed as reported, they should be supported by verifiable records.
If projects were funded more than once, the documentation should reveal it.
And if photographs from completed projects were allegedly reused to support new contracts, investigators would need to determine whether that actually occurred and who was responsible.
From Allegations to Investigation
The submission of evidence to the Ombudsman does not automatically establish criminal liability.
It does, however, create a pathway for investigators to examine the claims and determine whether there is sufficient basis for further action.
According to the report, possible cases being considered against individuals who may ultimately be proven involved include:
Plunder
Malversation
Violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
The crucial phrase here is “may be proven involved.”
An investigation must still determine whether the alleged irregularities occurred, who may have been responsible, and whether the evidence meets the legal requirements for criminal charges.
That distinction is essential.
Political accusations can generate headlines.
But criminal liability requires evidence that can withstand legal scrutiny.
The Alleged “Old and New Tricks”
Lacson's description of the alleged methods used in the projects raises several questions.
One of the most serious allegations involves the supposed use of old photographs to support new contracts.
If proven, such a practice could raise major questions about project documentation and the integrity of government procurement and implementation records.
Another allegation involves supposed double appropriations.
This raises the question of whether public funds were allegedly allocated more than once for the same or substantially similar projects.
Then there is the allegation involving supposed ghost projects—projects that may have existed in government records but allegedly did not correspond to actual completed infrastructure on the ground.
Each allegation requires evidence.
And each should be examined independently.
Why the Ombudsman Submission Matters
The Ombudsman has the authority to investigate allegations involving corruption and misconduct by public officials.
By formally submitting evidence, Lacson is effectively asking investigators to examine the information and determine whether there is sufficient basis for further proceedings.
The next stage will therefore be critical.
Investigators will need to compare government records with actual project sites.
They may need to examine procurement documents, contracts, disbursement records, project photographs, engineering reports, and other supporting documentation.
The central question is simple:
Did the projects exist and were they implemented as reported?
If yes, the evidence should establish that.
If not, investigators will need to determine what happened to the public funds involved.
Political Fallout
The controversy also carries political implications because Taguig is widely associated with the political base of Senator Alan Peter Cayetano.
Lacson's allegations therefore have the potential to create a new political flashpoint.
However, allegations involving public funds should ultimately be resolved through evidence rather than political loyalty.
The question should not be whether a politician belongs to one faction or another.
The question should be whether public money was properly spent.
If the allegations are unfounded, an investigation should establish that.
If irregularities are found, those responsible should be held accountable.
That is precisely why independent investigation matters.
The Politikanta Minute Take
“Taguig is something else.”
That phrase from Ping Lacson is now the headline—but the real story is what happens next.
The senator has submitted evidence to the Ombudsman.
Now the burden shifts to the investigators.
The allegations are serious.
Ghost projects.
Double appropriations.
Recycled photographs.
An allegedly illegal reclamation project described as slope protection.
And billions of pesos in infrastructure spending.
But allegations are not convictions.
The public deserves a thorough investigation that follows the evidence wherever it leads.
If the documents and records show that everything was properly implemented, then that should be made clear.
If the evidence reveals irregularities, then those responsible should face the appropriate legal consequences.
The figure of ₱14.4 billion is large enough to demand serious scrutiny.
But the ultimate question is not simply how much money was spent.
It is:
Where did the money go?
What was actually built?
Who approved the projects?
Who benefited?
And most importantly:
Can every peso be accounted for?
That is the investigation the Filipino public deserves.
✝️ BIBLE VERSE CONNECTION
Proverbs 21:15 (KJV)
“It is joy to the just to do judgment…”
Exegesis / Reflection
Public accountability requires more than political accusations.
It requires a process capable of separating truth from falsehood.
When questions arise over billions in public spending, the proper response is neither blind defense nor immediate condemnation.
It is investigation.
Evidence must be examined.
Records must be checked.
Claims must be tested.
And if wrongdoing is proven, justice must follow.
The biblical principle of justice reminds us that accountability should not depend on political affiliation.
The same standard should apply whether the person involved is a political ally, an opponent, or someone with no political connection at all.
Justice is strongest when it follows the evidence—not the political winds.
If the allegations are false, the truth should clear those accused.
If the allegations are proven, the truth should expose those responsible.
Either way, the public deserves the truth.
TRILLANES INIUUGNAY ANG 18 EX-SOLDIERS SA KAMPO NI DUTERTE
March 02, 2026•2 min read
Naglabas ng pahayag si Antonio Trillanes IV kaugnay sa isyu ng 18 dating sundalo na umano’y sangkot sa isang kontrobersyal na usapin.
Sa isang panayam na inilabas ng Global Daily Mirror, sinabi ni Trillanes na nakakatanggap umano sila ng impormasyon na hindi raw ito basta naganap nang walang koordinasyon.
“We’re getting information right now na galing sa Duterte camp… Hindi ito nangyari parang at random. 18 ex-soldiers, paano sila nag-usap-usap? Talagang ginawa ito nung kampo ni Duterte kasi they stand to benefit most from this,” ani Trillanes.
Ayon sa dating senador, may mga indikasyon umano na may organisadong pagkilos sa likod ng pangyayari. Gayunpaman, wala pa umanong opisyal na kumpirmasyon o resulta ng imbestigasyon na magpapatunay sa alegasyon.
Panig ng Duterte Camp
Sa panahong isinusulat ito, wala pang inilalabas na pormal na tugon mula sa kampo ni Rodrigo Duterte hinggil sa naturang pahayag. Sa mga naunang isyu, paulit-ulit na itinanggi ng dating pangulo at ng kanyang mga kaalyado ang mga paratang na may kinalaman sila sa mga umano’y sabwatan o ilegal na operasyon.
Karaniwan, ang ganitong mga alegasyon ay sinusundan ng panawagan para sa masusing imbestigasyon upang matukoy ang katotohanan.
Mas Malawak na Konteksto
Ang isyu ng mga dating miyembro ng militar na nasasangkot sa mga kontrobersiya ay madalas nagiging sensitibong usapin, lalo na kung may implikasyon sa pambansang seguridad o pulitika.
Ang pahayag ni Trillanes ay bahagi ng mas malawak na diskurso sa political landscape habang papalapit ang mga susunod na eleksyon. Sa ganitong mga pagkakataon, mahalaga ang malinaw na ebidensya at patas na proseso upang maiwasan ang maling impormasyon at politikal na tensyon.
Ano ang Susunod?
Ang mga susunod na hakbang ay nakasalalay sa mga awtoridad na maaaring magsagawa ng imbestigasyon kung kinakailangan. Para sa publiko, mahalagang suriin ang mga pahayag mula sa magkabilang panig at hintayin ang opisyal na resulta bago bumuo ng konklusyon.
Sa ngayon, nananatili itong isang alegasyon na nangangailangan pa ng masusing pagbusisi.
