The political landscape has been rocked by an intense wave of speculation stemming from a high-stakes, multi-billion-peso financial controversy, with reports suggesting that key figures involved are now engaged in a desperate game of survival. The intense speculation centers around businessman Zaldy Co and the swirling, viral claims that he may be preparing to “flip” his testimony or “confess” details about the sprawling, and highly controversial, “Flood Control Scandal.” This has ignited a furious public discussion, with many wondering if this marks the pivotal moment the public has been anxiously awaiting—the moment someone breaks rank and exposes the alleged mastermind behind the massive anomalies.

This viral rumor, which has dominated social media discussions, is rooted in the belief that an internal betrayal is imminent. The narrative suggests that powerful political operators may be trying to negotiate their own immunity, potentially by pressuring or setting up other individuals—including Co—to take the fall. The implication is a deep political maneuver where one prominent figure could be salvaged from prosecution, leaving another to face the full legal consequences. For the public, this scenario is a bitter pill, confirming long-held fears that the elite can always find a way to manipulate the system and avoid accountability, often by sacrificing those less politically powerful.

The widespread unease was significantly amplified by the staunch statements of former Comelec Commissioner, Atty. Rowena Guanzon, who publicly expressed her skepticism regarding the fairness and impartiality of the current investigating body. In a bold social media post, Guanzon didn’t mince words, suggesting that the delay in charging a high-ranking political figure was due to ongoing negotiations with the country’s highest office. The alleged deal, according to her public commentary, was designed to protect the influential figure while simultaneously ensuring that Zaldy Co would be the primary target of the prosecution. Guanzon’s comments have resonated deeply with the public, fueling the perception that the investigation is being unfairly manipulated, and that there are indeed “untouchables” within the current political hierarchy who are immune to true accountability.

Critics, including various political analysts and commentators, argue that the integrity of the process is fundamentally compromised when suspicions of such backroom negotiations and selective justice are so pervasive. Many have openly called for the investigation to be made completely public, asserting that as a government entity, the process must be fully transparent to the public it serves. The intense scrutiny is a direct result of a lack of trust in what many perceive as a selective process, where the investigation mysteriously halts or changes direction when it approaches certain politically connected individuals. The belief is that this opaqueness serves only to protect the highest-ranking officials, allowing the true orchestrators of alleged anomalies to escape justice.

The political firestorm is not confined to the flood control allegations alone; it has also brought into sharp focus the broader, and equally controversial, issue of confidential funds within the government. Public anger, initially centered on the P125 million confidential fund of the Vice President, has now escalated dramatically to include the P27 billion confidential fund of the President himself. Commentators have forcefully argued that the principle of transparency must apply equally to all, regardless of their position. They demand a full accounting of how the massive P27 billion fund was spent, especially amid reports—unconfirmed by official audit bodies—that the entire amount was allegedly depleted. The public reaction highlights a deep and growing frustration: why are some officials subject to intense scrutiny over millions, while others are allowed to evade questions about billions?

The controversy surrounding the confidential funds provides a crucial backdrop to the claims of selective justice in the flood control scandal. The comparison of the figures—millions versus billions—serves to underscore the public’s belief that political convenience, rather than justice, dictates who is pursued and who is protected. The public mood is turning increasingly hostile, with many arguing that the government’s failure to provide satisfactory answers on the use of these gargantuan funds further erodes trust, reinforcing the need for leaders to be questioned and held accountable for every peso of public money. The consensus is clear: if the spending is legitimate, there should be no fear in providing a transparent accounting to the people who ultimately fund these budgets.

As the political drama unfolds, the nation is witnessing a deeply divisive rift within the ruling establishment, with some analysts suggesting that the internal conflict is driven by competition for future power. The current turmoil has exposed the fragility of political alliances, as the fear of prosecution leads to mutual distrust and the potential for figures to “drop” their associates. The hope among supporters of transparency is that this internal conflict will ultimately serve the public interest by forcing the truth out into the open. The entire saga has created a climate where public opinion is being constantly shaped by viral rumors and dramatic political allegations. Whether Zaldy Co ultimately flips or not, the pervasive public suspicion that a backroom deal is being orchestrated to protect the powerful remains the defining narrative of this political moment, a profound testament to the public’s thirst for true, equitable accountability across all levels of government.