The national investigation into the massive flood control project irregularities—a scandal involving the alleged misuse of millions in public funds—has just been struck by a seismic event. In a move that has stunned political observers and infuriated anti-corruption advocates, the key witnesses at the heart of the probe, the couple known publicly as Sarah and Curly Discaya, have abruptly announced their withdrawal of cooperation from the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI). This decision is not a simple refusal to participate; it is a dramatic declaration of lost faith in the very integrity of the process, threatening to derail the most crucial testimony the nation was waiting to hear.

The official explanation for this shocking retreat, as articulated by their legal counsel, Attorney Cornelio Samaniego, centers on a profound crisis of trust. According to the lawyer, the couple was initially prepared to fully cooperate and disclose everything they knew. However, that commitment eroded following a series of public statements made by high-ranking officials from the ICI itself and the Department of Justice (DOJ). These statements, made before the investigation was complete and before the couple had fully provided their side, created an inescapable impression of bias and predetermined judgment. For instance, the lawyer pointed to a remark by an ICI commissioner who reportedly stated that the couple was not the “primary culprit.” While seemingly an attempt to minimize their culpability, the Discayas perceived this as the Commission already having formed a conclusion, effectively making their detailed testimony a formality rather than a necessary pursuit of truth.

The crisis of confidence was further intensified by a statement from the Acting Secretary of Justice, who publicly suggested that the department could still file cases against the implicated officials, even without the testimony of the Discaya couple. For the witnesses, this raised an alarming question: If their testimony was not essential to the case, what purpose did their continued exposure serve? The concern quickly shifted from a duty to cooperate to an urgent need for self-preservation. In their view, if the investigative process could proceed without them, it was wiser to step back than to participate in a process they believed was already compromised, risking their safety and security without a clear guarantee of fairness. They did not want to be utilized merely as disposable pieces of evidence, potentially to be implicated themselves later on.

The withdrawal, however, conceals a far more dangerous reality than simple procedural distrust. Attorney Samaniego made a highly sensitive disclosure, revealing that the couple’s reluctance is fundamentally rooted in the profound pressure they have experienced from an unnamed “big person”—an individual allegedly occupying a high position and who holds direct leverage over the couple’s life and safety. This “big person,” the lawyer revealed, had direct involvement in coercing the Discaya couple to engage in the questionable practice of paying money to secure the release of certain projects. Mr. Discaya was initially reluctant to participate in this system but was allegedly compelled to comply due to the immense pressure and the persistent calls from this powerful official.

This revelation explains the selective nature of the information the couple has provided thus far. While they have appeared before various bodies, including the Senate Loribon Committee, they have intentionally held back their complete and full affidavit. The primary reason is that this crucial document contains the specific, sensitive details that directly implicate this “big person.” The couple’s priority is to ensure that when they release this explosive information, they do so in a secure, fair environment where their safety is absolutely guaranteed. The premature statements from the ICI, however, only solidified their fear that the process itself might not be sturdy enough to protect them from the inevitable retaliation from powerful, vested interests.

Adding to the complexity are the practical and legal hurdles the couple faces. Mr. Discaya currently remains in Senate detention, having been cited for contempt by the Senate Loribon Committee. This physical confinement severely limits his ability to meticulously prepare and complete the necessary documents and evidence required by the ICI. Furthermore, the lawyer disclosed that the couple had actively sought the Commission’s assistance, requesting a simple seven-day extension to organize and complete their documentation while Mr. Discaya was detained. Tragically, according to the legal team, the ICI did not grant this extension, effectively shutting the door on their attempt to meet the Commission’s requirements and further eroding the Discayas’ perception of the ICI as an empathetic, genuinely supportive independent body.

The controversy has also generated strong pushback from other government watchdogs. The Office of the Ombudsman publicly criticized the Discaya couple’s decision, with Ombudsman Remulla reportedly stating that the move was “misguided,” implying that the couple might be protecting certain officials. The lawyer vehemently denied this, emphasizing that the couple harbors no desire to shield anyone. Their sole motivation, he insisted, is the desire for a fair, unbiased process where the truth—specifically the truth involving the “big person”—can be exposed at the right time and in the right manner, free from prejudice or pre-judgment.

The Discaya couple’s withdrawal is a damaging blow to the public’s confidence in the investigative machinery. It raises legitimate and terrifying questions: How can ordinary citizens be expected to come forward and disclose massive corruption if the state’s very own independent body cannot ensure a bias-free process or even provide basic logistical assistance to detained witnesses? The dramatic case of the Discaya couple is rapidly becoming a tragic illustration of how procedural missteps, combined with the palpable threat of retaliation from highly placed individuals, can effectively paralyze the quest for justice, allowing the powerful, shadowy figures at the top of the corruption network to escape the scrutiny they so desperately fear. The nation now waits to see if the ICI can take the necessary, drastic measures to restore trust and coax the critical truth out of the witnesses who are currently choosing silence over perceived jeopardy.