A seismic tremor has rippled through the upper echelons of the Philippine government, casting a harsh light on the delicate intersection of political power, high finance, and familial influence. This turbulence stems from a formal filing submitted to the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) by a private citizen, John Santander, who has courageously demanded a rigorous investigation into alleged links between First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos and Presidential Special Envoy to China, Maynard Ngu. At the core of the filing is a simple yet explosive question: Was the First Lady’s close, decades-long relationship with Ngu leveraged for political reward, potentially implicating her in the shadow cast by the sprawling multi-billion peso flood control scandal?

The scandal itself is already notorious. It revolves around allegations of massive kickbacks and pocketing of public funds earmarked for critical flood control projects, which were brought into the public consciousness by a former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) official. This official, former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, testified before a Senate inquiry, claiming to have personally delivered substantial sums—allegedly in the neighborhood of 160 million pesos—intended for a powerful Senator. In that testimony, the figure of Maynard Ngu was introduced, identified by Bernardo as the alleged “bagman” for the Senator regarding contentious line items and unprogrammed infrastructure funds. Ngu’s alleged role as a key conduit for illicit payments placed him squarely at the center of one of the administration’s most challenging anti-graft probes.

Yet, Santander’s recent letter to the ICI raises the stakes exponentially. While Ngu’s connection to the Senator and the corruption scheme is already under legal scrutiny, the filing shifts the investigative focus directly toward the Palace, suggesting a possible quid pro quo arrangement involving Ngu and the First Lady. The letter does not claim a direct involvement by Mrs. Marcos in the theft of flood control funds, but rather points to a pattern of influence and reward that, according to the petition, necessitates a full, motu proprio investigation by the ICI.

Santander’s document meticulously lays out the alleged ties, presenting a collection of circumstantial and photographic evidence that paints a picture of a deep, long-standing, and potentially mutually beneficial relationship between the two figures. The evidence can be broken down into three compelling areas: personal association, political fundraising, and alleged influence over appointments.

Firstly, the evidence of personal association is starkly visual. The submission includes photographs documenting the First Lady and Ngu socializing at various high-profile events over time. One such photo reportedly captures them together at an event for Cherry Mobile, a company where Ngu served as CEO and owner. Furthermore, the letter cites reports detailing the First Lady’s presence at social gatherings hosted by Ngu, including a dinner with other political and social figures—such as Senator Escudero and prominent celebrity Heart Evangelista—at Ngu’s own establishment, the Cork Wine Bar. This historical proximity, according to the filing, is not a coincidence but the foundation of an influential connection.

Secondly, the matter of political fundraising is brought into sharp relief by the Cork Wine Bar connection. Santander references media reports, including those from billionaire news channel, detailing how the Cork Wine Bar was the site of a “high-value fundraiser” for then-presidential candidate Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. in March 2022. The First Lady herself, Liza Araneta Marcos, was widely recognized as her husband’s key campaign strategist and the intellectual force driving the campaign. The petition posits a critical question: Given the campaign’s reliance on high-level support, was Ngu’s significant fundraising effort the event that solidified his value to the incoming administration?

This leads directly to the third and most crucial point: the alleged influence over Palace appointments. The petition claims that the rewards for Ngu’s loyalty and influence were substantial. It cites reports, including one from Rapler, suggesting that Ngu was involved in recommending appointments to the Palace based on a list allegedly provided by the First Lady herself to former Executive Secretary Vic Rodriguez. This explosive detail is reportedly corroborated within Rodriguez’s own recently published book, The Kingmaker. The petition highlights a timeline where this list of recommendations was provided before the Executive Secretary could even take his oath of office, underscoring Ngu’s immediate and exceptional level of access and influence.

The implication is direct: Ngu’s appointment as Special Envoy to China for Trade, Investment, and Tourism, a high-ranking and potentially lucrative post, was not solely based on his professional qualifications but was brokered by or on the strength of his connection with the First Lady. In this scenario, Ngu received a powerful appointment and the ability to influence other key government positions, while the First Lady secured the loyalty and resources of a powerful businessman during the critical campaign phase. This alleged exchange, if proven, forms the quid pro quo that taints the appointment process and indirectly links Ngu’s subsequent corruption allegations to the very core of the administration.

Santander’s letter closes with a forceful demand, urging the ICI to go beyond the existing probes and take immediate, decisive action. Specifically, he requests the ICI to:

Conduct a motu proprio (on its own initiative) investigation into the relationship and ties between Maynard Ngu and First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos.
Invite both Ngu and Mrs. Marcos to appear before the ICI to provide a clear, public explanation of their relationship, particularly concerning Ngu’s lobbying for the appointment of Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, the man who later named Ngu as a bagman.
Recommend the filing of appropriate criminal cases before the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Ombudsman, depending on the evidence uncovered against either or both individuals.

This formal petition places the Marcos administration at a critical crossroads. The investigation into the flood control scandal is already a significant test of the President’s resolve, especially given his public vow to “spare no one,” including members of his own family, from the scrutiny of the anti-graft bodies. The introduction of the First Lady’s name and alleged influence into the equation elevates the crisis from a standard corruption probe to a profound constitutional and ethical challenge.

The ICI now faces immense public pressure to act decisively and transparently. While the commission has yet to officially address the letter, the filing has already achieved its primary goal: to force the public conversation away from peripheral figures and directly toward the highest offices of the land. The integrity of the President’s anti-corruption platform, the perceived objectivity of key appointments, and the public’s faith in the Executive Branch all hang in the balance, awaiting the ICI’s next move. This investigation is no longer just about misplaced funds; it is about the fundamental transparency and accountability of power itself.