In a political climate simmering with public discontent, President Bongbong Marcos’s administration finds itself at the center of a blistering new controversy. A recent presidential report, intended to showcase a decisive crackdown on corruption within massive flood control projects, has instead been met with ferocious skepticism and accusations of being a “disoriented” and “disgraceful” performance.

Critics and public commentators, including the vocal Balitang Pinoy TV, are alleging the entire endeavor is a carefully staged sham designed to protect the true masterminds—powerful political allies—while sacrificing lower-level contractors as convenient scapegoats.

The public was promised accountability. During his SONA, the president issued a stern warning: “The happy days are over. We will chase you.” Yet, for many, those words now ring hollow, feeling like just another instance of being “duped” by a system that promises change but delivers theatrics.

The Elephant in the Room: Protected Allies?
The core of the outrage stems from what critics perceive as a glaring and intentional omission. While the President’s report detailed actions against various contractors and a handful of local officials, it conspicuously avoided any mention of high-profile political figures allegedly at the heart of the anomaly.

The names on everyone’s lips are “Congressman Zalico” and House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

“The nation’s question is, why is former Congressman Zalico’s passport not yet canceled?” one commentator boldly asked, channeling a question that has echoed across social media. This pointed inquiry highlights a raw nerve: the perception that certain individuals remain untouchable.

Analysts argue that the administration is trapped in a political paradox. To launch a genuine investigation into figures like Romualdez and Zalico, who are key allies, would risk destabilizing the administration itself. “If they investigate Martin Romualdez and Zalico,” one analyst explained, “it will reflect on the current administration… they are allies.”

The result, critics claim, is a “panic” response. The President’s press conference, intended to be a show of strength, was described by observers as “disoriented,” with the President appearing to “stutter” and ramble, merely repeating old news. This perceived lack of confidence has only fueled suspicions that the report is more about public relations than public justice.

The Scapegoats: Where Are the Congressmen?
If the political giants are protected, critics ask, then who pays the price? The President’s report provided a clear answer: contractors and low-level bureaucrats.

The administration highlighted the seizure of 13 luxury vehicles by the Bureau of Customs and referrals to the Ombudsman by the DPWH. The complaints named individuals like Henry Alcantara, Bryce Hernandez, and others, along with contractors such as St. Timothy Construction, Wawa Builders, and Sims Construction Trading.

This, however, prompted immediate backlash. “No congressman was held accountable!” an analyst exclaimed. “Applause, applause… Good news for the House of Representatives. No congressman was involved.”

This “good news” was delivered with biting sarcasm, underpinning the belief that this is a “disgrace.” The commentator argued that these contractors are merely cogs in a much larger machine. “Do you think these contractors can even move without the congressmen?” they posed. “The biggest loot doesn’t go to the contractors.”

This selective prosecution, critics argue, is an insult to the public’s intelligence. It presents a facade of action while ensuring the architecture of corruption, allegedly run from the halls of Congress, remains untouched.

‘Report to the President’: A Failure of Leadership?
A significant portion of the President’s report focused on the “Sumbong sa Pangulo” (Report to the President) website, which he touted as a success, having received over 20,000 reports from citizens. He praised the public, stating, “We would not have known about many of these things if you had not reported them to us.”

Instead of being received as a victory for civic engagement, this statement was interpreted as a stunning admission of weakness.

“He’s showing he is a weak leader,” one critic charged. “Imagine saying in front of the Filipino people that if you don’t report, we won’t know. Are you admitting you are that blind? Is our government that weak?”

This approach is being unfavorably compared to the previous administration’s Philippine Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC), an agency whose job was to proactively investigate, inspect, and expose corruption. “You are making the people your watchdog,” the commentator lamented. “We pay taxes for you government officials to work, but we are the ones you make watchmen… You are shameless.”

This delegation of responsibility is seen not as empowerment, but as an abdication of duty. The public, already struggling, is now being tasked with the government’s core function of oversight.

‘Useless Strolls’: Photo-Ops Over Solutions
The President’s personal inspections of failed flood control projects in Iloilo, Calumpit, and Baliwag were also dismissed as hollow gestures. While the President claimed these visits confirmed the “clear” existence of corruption and substandard work, critics saw them as nothing more than expensive, self-serving photo-opportunities.

“Going there was useless,” a critic stated flatly. “You report that you went there, that you strolled around… you proved there was corruption. And then what? You did nothing.”

The frustration is palpable. The public is not interested in a leader who merely diagnoses a problem they already live with. “The important thing is that you do something,” the analyst continued. “Be part of the solution. Don’t just stroll around, wasting money on airplane and helicopter gasoline.”

The fear is that when the next typhoon hits and the same areas flood again, the administration will simply say, “See? I told you so. I visited that place.” This passive, reportorial style, critics argue, is the antithesis of leadership.

An ‘Independent’ Commission, An ‘Unconvinced’ Public
The administration’s final card was the announcement of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), tasked with investigating all government infrastructure projects. But like the website and the site visits, this, too, was met with cynicism.

For a public that feels it has been “duped” (“nabudol”), this is just another layer of bureaucracy, another “report” in a sea of reports, with no real teeth.

The consensus among critics is that the entire anti-corruption drive, as presented, is a failure. They see a President who seems “slower” and less decisive than his predecessors, an administration more concerned with protecting allies than pursuing justice, and a system that punishes the small fish while letting the sharks swim free.

The 20,000 reports from the public are not a sign of success; they are a monument to a nation’s desperation, a people crying out for real action, only to be handed another empty promise.