A major political controversy has gripped the nation after the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Inter-Agency Committee on Investigation (ICI) announced the referral of information to the Ombudsman regarding alleged massive corruption.

The potential charges, which include plunder and anti-graft complaints, center on anomalies within various flood control projects across the country. Key political figures implicated in this initial phase include former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and another politician known as Saldico, both of whom have strong ties to the current administration.

However, this seemingly decisive move has immediately drawn intense criticism, with prominent commentators suggesting the administration is engaging in political theater rather than genuine accountability.

According to a highly influential political commentator, the investigation appears to be a calculated act of “optics” designed to mitigate a growing crisis of confidence in the presidency. This strategic move, critics argue, is intended to stabilize an increasingly “shaky” and “unstable” administration by selectively targeting allies perceived as expendable.

The core of the outrage stems from the widely held belief that those being investigated are merely the “small fry”—or minor figures—while the true perpetrators, the so-called “big fish” who hold ultimate power and influence, are being shielded from any serious legal scrutiny.

The central question raised by critics is why the scope of the probe seems limited when evidence points toward systemic failures. The commenter strongly suggests that it is practically impossible for the alleged malfeasance, particularly concerning anomalies in the 2023, 2024, and 2025 national budgets, to have occurred without the knowledge or ultimate approval of the highest office.

Since the President personally affixed his signature to the budget bills, the public demands answers regarding his direct or indirect role in endorsing the highly contentious appropriations, which included questionable items. Until the investigation expands to include those at the very top, the public will view the current proceedings as nothing more than a superficial attempt to appease public anger.

Furthermore, the integrity of the investigative process itself has been called into question, with the ICI being heavily scrutinized for inconsistencies and a blatant lack of transparency.

The committee drew sharp rebuke after failing to honor its promise to hold open, live-streamed hearings, a move that severely undermines public trust and creates the perception of a secretive operation.

Critics point out that this retreat from transparency makes it easier for the ICI to control the narrative and suppress information that might implicate more powerful figures or expose further procedural flaws.

The use of legal instruments has also become a point of contention. The ICI has issued Immigration Lookout Bulletin Orders (ILBOs) against several congressmen and other individuals allegedly involved in the flood control scheme.

Yet, the speaker highlighted the sheer paradox: the agency has failed to follow up by actually summoning most of those individuals for proper questioning. This oversight is criticized as a major disservice, especially to those who may be innocent and wish to clear their names publicly, while also raising concerns that the ILBOs are being weaponized for political purposes.

Adding to the gravity of the situation, reports confirm that one key figure implicated in the scheme, an assistant to Saldico, had successfully left the country months ago, indicating a significant failure in the early stages of the accountability process.

Ultimately, the voice of dissent is clear: true justice and restitution require full accountability, not political maneuvering. The commentator and the public at large emphasize that merely pursuing “small fry” will never satisfy the nation’s demand for justice.

The investigation, they stress, must be relentless, transparent, and unwavering in its pursuit of all those responsible for plundering public funds, regardless of their position or political affiliation, or else this highly visible process will be dismissed entirely as a hollow charade.