FILE

The past few days have reinforced what we warned in our earlier column: Zaldy Co is beating the government in the narrative, not because he is credible, but because the government keeps handing him the advantage.

Co’s allegations remain self-serving. Any seasoned communicator knows that timing, framing, and selective disclosure are classic tools of political survival.

But what has unfolded recently has made it easier, dangerously easier, for him to appear as the one telling the “truth.”

The ₱100-B insertion is now confirmed. Co claimed there was a ₱100B insertion. Today, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, while defending the President, confirmed that the insertion actually happened.

This shifts the question dramatically. It is no longer:

“Totoo ba ang insertion?”

It is now:

“Totoo. Pero sino ang nag-utos, at saan napunta ang pera?”

Co alleges that President Marcos and former Speaker Martin Romualdez orchestrated it.

Lacson, however, says the alleged kickbacks went to two Palace officials: Undersecretary Adrian Bersamin and Undersecretary Trygve Olaivar.

Both narratives place the irregularity inside the Palace, not in Congress.

Lacson’s information comes secondhand, through internal calls and sources. Co claims firsthand delivery, which, even if untrue, sounds stronger in public perception.

That is how narrative dominance works.

Adding to this, Marine Officer Guteza, under oath, testified that he was part of a group that delivered monies to Co and Romualdez.

Co has publicly corroborated this account. Even though details remain contested, such testimony gives his narrative additional weight in the public eye.

Many observers would also doubt that the 25% commission alleged by Co, roughly ₱25 billion, would go entirely to two Palace underlings.

That alone raises questions about plausibility, but in the public mind, the details are often overshadowed by the narrative of “who knew what and who profited.”

We have great respect for Sen. Lacson, particularly for his decades-long work as a budget advocate and his insistence on transparency and accountability.

But in this case, his defense of the President may have had counterproductive effects.

By corroborating Co’s central assertion that a huge insertion existed, he inadvertently validated parts of Co’s narrative.

By naming Palace officials, he gave Co visual confirmation of his claims.

By revealing that insiders like DPWH Usec. Roberto Bernardo were already discussing the alleged transactions internally, he reinforced the sense that the government knew but could not clearly explain itself.

Whether Lacson intended it or not, Co now looks credible on the existence of the insertion.

The government looks like it is scrambling over who ordered it, a far weaker position. That shift alone is exactly how one wins a narrative battle.

Co specifically named Usec. Adrian Bersamin as part of the insertion operation, and Lacson’s version also places Adrian in the picture.

Meanwhile, the recent resignations of Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin and DBM Secretary Amenah Pangandaman, a name Co mentioned, adds visual weight to Co’s narrative.

According to Co, Pangandaman called him to relay the alleged ₱100B insertion that BBM wanted and to confirm this with Usec. Adrian. Even if this personnel move was routine or long planned, the optics are powerful and optics are the fuel of narrative politics.

It is also an open secret in Palace circles that Pangandaman and Olaivar have been close for years, having served together as staff members under the late Sen. Edgardo Angara.

What that closeness entails is another story, but its inclusion adds context and color, showing how personal networks within the Palace can intersect with official operations without making any claims beyond widely known facts.

Government communications remain in disarray. The administration has delivered conflicting statements from multiple spokespersons, defensive postures, and overly emotional responses.

National TV meltdowns, including one official shouting during a live interview, have only added fuel to Co’s narrative.

When a government cannot control its own message, someone else will control it for them and that is exactly what Co is doing.

Usec. Claire Castro and other Palace communicators have yet to clarify the story in a way that restores credibility.

Castro’s defensive, sometimes vague, explanations, suggesting the President “was not initially aware” only reinforce the impression of a disconnected, reactive administration.

The vacuum created by weak messaging has allowed Co’s story to occupy center stage.

Everything that happened over the past few days validates the central thesis of our earlier column: the government messaged weakly; Co messaged strongly.

Government contradicted itself; Co appeared consistent. Government reacted emotionally; Co appeared calm, even cunning.

Internal fractures were exposed; Co presented a unified storyline.

We are not defending Zaldy Co. His hands are far from clean. But weakness in government communication allows even questionable figures to appear stronger.

The events recently demonstrate a fundamental truth: when the message collapses, the messenger you fear most gains the power you least expect.

To regain control, the Marcos administration must organize its communications, ensure all spokespersons speak with one voice, align messaging with facts and evidence, and demonstrate accountability openly.

Without these steps, Co will continue to dominate the narrative. Not because he is right, but because the government is giving him the stage.

Sabi nga ng isang minsang nagtangkang maging diktador ng buong mundo: Ang kasinungalingan, pag inulit ng inulit ay nagmimistulang katotohanan."

Hanggang kailan papayagan ng gobyerno ang mga kasinungalingang ito?

Ed Javier

Ed Javier is a veteran communicator with over 35 years of experience in corporate, government, and advocacy communications, spanning the terms of seven Philippine presidents. He is also a political analyst, entrepreneur, and media professional. Drawing on this experience, he delivers clear, accessible analysis of political, governance, and business issues.