Senator Lacson’s Announcement and Context
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said on Sunday he will resign as chairman of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee following internal dissatisfaction from fellow senators over his handling of the investigation into anomalous flood control projects. The disclosure comes as the committee continues to scrutinize alleged misuses of public funds connected to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
In remarks framed by a sense of duty to the Senate and the public, Lacson explained that leadership is elected by peers and that stepping aside could enable a more effective voice to lead the inquiry. He added that, while he has faced criticisms from online commentators and partisan groups, his commitment to uncovering corruption remains unwavering.
What Triggered the Move?
The controversy centers on perceived gaps in the invitation list for witnesses in the flood control investigations. Some colleagues reportedly questioned why former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and Rep. Zaldy Co were not summoned to testify. Critics have argued that the proceedings may have benefited from broader testimony to bolster accountability.
Lacson defended his approach in a statement, acknowledging his peers’ sentiments. “Rightly or wrongly, when quite a number of them have expressed disappointment over how I’m handling the flood control project anomalies, I thought it’s time for me to step aside in favor of another member who they think can handle the committee better,” he said. He underscored that his aim is to prevent distractions and maintain focus on the case’s substance.
Broader Implications for Senate Leadership
As the Senate president pro tempore and a former presidential candidate, Lacson’s decision could influence the dynamic of Senate leadership and how future investigations are conducted. He said he would submit his resignation letter and that it could be formalized when the Senate reconvenes. Yet he made clear that his fight against corruption would persist beyond his tenure as committee chair.
Lacson also emphasized the importance of fiscal oversight, noting his intent to scrutinize the DPWH’s proposed 2026 budget and encouraging restraint in realignments for locally funded infrastructure projects. The move has sparked reflections on how oversight is carried out and how committees balance thorough inquiry with timely legislative action.
Reactions From the Senate and Opposing Voices
Senate Majority Leader Migz Zubiri responded by denying any disunity in the Senate and describing a more orderly, collaborative environment under current leadership. He highlighted regular caucuses and a process that strives for consensus before decisions are made.
Opposition groups, including the coalition Tindig Pilipinas, weighed in on the political stakes. The group cautioned against any leadership changes that might shield those tied to the Duterte and Marcos/Duterte dynasties, urging vigilance in safeguarding governance and transparency. They affirmed support for a Senate majority they view as capable of advancing meaningful reform.
What’s Next for the Blue Ribbon Committee?
With Lacson’s resignation in view, the Senate will need to appoint a new chair who can maintain the momentum of ongoing inquiries into flood control projects and related funding. The transition could affect the pace and scope of hearings, witness participation, and the overall confidence of the public in the Senate’s anti-corruption agenda.
Observers note that leadership changes in committees can be a natural part of legislative evolution, allowing new perspectives to influence high-profile investigations. Whatever the outcome, the central objective remains clear: a transparent, accountable use of public funds and a robust check on infrastructure spending.
Conclusion
Sen. Lacson’s decision to step aside underscores the delicate balance between oversight, political optics, and procedural effectiveness in the Senate. As the chamber considers its next steps, the focus will be on preserving the integrity of inquiries, ensuring credible testimony, and delivering results that reinforce public trust in governance.
