President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. followed up the big, bold statement he made in his most recent State of the Nation Address (SONA) with an exposé of sorts that sent both signals to, and shivers down, the spine of the parties concerned. In so doing, our President appears to be ready to make history and carve for himself a special place in the ranks of those who stood at the helm and steered the country’s rudder.

In his latest SONA, the President, speaking in the vernacular, pricked the conscience of those whom he believes are involved in what he referred to as massive corruption, particularly in the implementation of public works projects, specifically, flood control infrastructure. He pointedly told them to “have some shame,” apparently assuming that those involved in the anomaly are capable of feeling a sense of guilt.

A more recent “exposé” by the President appeared to show that both conscience and guilt are a rare commodity among those who may be involved in the anomalies that have triggered the Chief Executive’s anger.

In a press conference, the President unveiled the list of top contractors who have secured the largest share of projects under the multi-billion-peso flood control program of the national government, which is implemented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

The President’s presentation showing that some 20 percent of the total national government expenditure on 9,000-plus flood control programs went to just 15 contractors. Based on the total expenditure of ₱545-plus billion, the President said that about ₱100 billion-worth of projects appear to have been “cornered” by the now-famous 15.

There were other observations that fired up the Presidential ire. The Chief Executive noted that many of the projects “were not properly labeled,” meaning the nature of the projects was not specified. He also pointed out that five out of the 15 contractors “had projects all over the country,” and wondered why local contractors were not included. In other words, the President had sent strong signals that the implementation of these gargantuan projects may not have passed the test of transparency, that certain parties may have been favored, and that the process of awarding these contracts may have been “influenced.”

Both Houses of Congress have announced their respective probe into the revelations made by the President.

The House of Representatives’ probe is being led by its TriCom. At the Senate, the probe was supposed to have been started by its Blue-Ribbon Committee yesterday.

There are calls for the President to call for an “independent investigation.”

We support the call.

The recommendations now being floated include the creation of an independent body, such as a Commission, to undertake the probe.

We understand the reason behind the call.

There are fears that the investigations being done by the two Houses may not pass the test of “independence.” While we do not wish to cast doubts on the character and integrity of our lawmakers, we share the view that a separate body would be in a better position to conduct the probe. Already, two big names from both houses are being linked to some of the contractors who landed on the President’s list of the famous 15. Efforts are now underway to establish their links with other personalities from the legislature. These can only fan suspicions that total objectivity can no longer be reasonably expected.

From the local government perspective, the question we wish to be answered by all probes is this: Why is it that after spending more than half-a-trillion pesos during the past two years, the concerned national government agencies are still unable to alleviate the suffering of our communities from floods? In fact, why are our constituents’ suffering appearing to be worse today despite the expenditure of such a huge amount of taxpayers’ money?

Our question is, how much more money and time are needed before our local communities’ suffering would finally end through real and meaningful flood-control projects?

Local governments must ask these questions and must support the call for an independent probe into the apparent irregularities bared by the President himself. After all, local governments carry the burden of dealing with the aftermath of massive flooding. They rescue, house, and feed evacuees. They account for and bury the fatalities. They are also at the receiving end of the collective anger of flood victims. In addition, local governments become targets of online critics who mislead their followers into believing that the huge allocations for big-ticket infrastructure projects, such as flood control measures, are in the hands of local officials.

A transparent probe done by an independent body could help shed light on how the billions land in the hands of what seems to be a favored few, and who actually are at the forefront of the implementation of flood-control projects.