THE ongoing investigation into the flood control funds scandal has evolved into something far more complicated than a corruption probe. It has become a battlefield where political factions compete to control public perception. Every new testimony, Senate hearing, press conference, and media leak is now interpreted not simply as an effort to uncover the truth but as part of a larger political contest. Lost in this struggle is the very purpose of any criminal investigation: to determine where the evidence objectively leads.
Much of the public conversation has become preoccupied with personalities instead of facts. Political camps have been eager to identify their preferred villains long before the legal process has run its course. This has produced competing narratives that generate more heat than light.
Yet there is one remarkable feature that emerges when politics is set aside and the available evidence is examined. Whether the information comes from state witnesses, contractors, former officials, public records, or even the controversial group known as the "Maleta Boys," one name consistently reappears: Zaldy Co.
That observation deserves serious attention.
The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on plunder requires prosecutors to identify the central public official who orchestrated or controlled the criminal enterprise rather than simply alleging a broad conspiracy. The term "master plunderer" is therefore not a political slogan. It is a legal conclusion that must rest on evidence demonstrating operational control, recurring involvement and centrality in the alleged scheme.
Holding high office alone does not make someone the mastermind. Neither does political prominence. The real question is whether the available evidence consistently identifies a person as the operational hub around which the alleged network revolves.
Viewed from this perspective, the recurring appearance of Zaldy Co raises difficult questions that cannot simply be ignored.
The strongest public accounts do not even begin with the Maleta Boys. They begin with state witnesses who accepted legal accountability in exchange for cooperation. Their credibility is constantly tested because their immunity may be withdrawn if they deliberately lie or withhold material information. That legal framework gives their testimonies considerably greater evidentiary value than ordinary political accusations.
According to these testimonies, Co repeatedly appears within the alleged network involving flood control projects, contractor relationships, and financial transactions. These are not isolated references. They form a discernible pattern.
His professional history likewise deserves attention.
Unlike many politicians who merely approve budgets or participate in legislative deliberations, Co entered politics from the construction industry. His long experience as a government contractor gave him intimate familiarity with project identification, costing, implementation, certification, and payment. If the allegations concern manipulation of infrastructure contracts, ghost projects, substandard construction, and contractor networks, then expertise in that ecosystem becomes highly relevant. One naturally asks who possessed both the political influence and the technical knowledge to operate such a system.
Even the controversial Maleta Boys inadvertently reinforce this point.
I have repeatedly argued that their statements should be treated with extreme caution. Their testimonies have expanded over time, introducing an ever-growing list of personalities while being delivered in politically charged settings rather than formal judicial proceedings. Serious allegations involving plunder deserve sworn testimony, documentary support and cross-examination, not political theater.
Yet even if one temporarily assumes, solely for argument's sake, that portions of their accounts are accurate, their narratives still revolve around Co's alleged network. By their own account, they were supposedly connected to his personnel, logistics, operations and financial movements. Ironically, even witnesses whose credibility is under serious question continue pointing back to the same individual.
This convergence is difficult to dismiss.
Evidence may be debated, but recurring patterns should never be ignored.
When multiple streams of evidence, some highly credible and others considerably less so, all repeatedly intersect at the same point, investigators have every reason to examine that intersection more closely.
That is why the current direction of the investigation has become increasingly puzzling.
The Office of the Ombudsman has publicly described other personalities using the language associated with the "master plunderer" doctrine while appearing far more restrained in its public treatment of Co. It has likewise entered into a cooperation agreement with former DPWH secretary Manuel Bonoan despite allegations that he himself occupied a central role in the implementation of flood control projects. These prosecutorial decisions may ultimately prove legally justified, but they inevitably invite public scrutiny because consistency is essential to maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.
Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.
When similar evidence appears to produce different prosecutorial approaches, people naturally begin asking whether legal standards are being applied uniformly or whether political considerations are influencing investigative priorities. Those questions cannot simply be dismissed as partisan attacks. They arise because transparency is indispensable in major corruption cases.
None of this should be interpreted as a declaration of guilt. Due process remains the cornerstone of our legal system, and allegations must ultimately be proven in court through competent evidence.
But due process also demands intellectual honesty.
If every major evidentiary path repeatedly converges on the same individual, investigators have an obligation to explain why their public conclusions appear to point elsewhere. If there is additional evidence justifying that direction, the public deserves to know it. If not, investigative priorities deserve reconsideration.
The flood control scandal is too significant to become another episode of political score-settling. Billions of pesos intended to protect communities from devastating floods are allegedly involved. Every peso lost to corruption translates into flooded homes, damaged livelihoods, destroyed crops, and lives placed unnecessarily at risk.
The investigation should therefore resist political capture. Its objective is not to satisfy partisan interests but to identify those truly responsible, wherever the evidence ultimately leads.
At this stage, one observation remains difficult to ignore.
Whether one follows the testimonies of state witnesses, contractor histories, documentary records, or even the contradictory accounts of the Maleta Boys, the same name continues to emerge with remarkable consistency.
Sometimes the evidence speaks for itself.
All roads lead to Zaldy Co.
Antonio P. Contreras PhD is a professor at the School of Environmental Science and Management, University of the Philippines Los Baños, and vice chairman of the board of the state-run PTV Network, Inc.