OPINION
Ed Javier
When Will Bonoan, Pangandaman, Bersamin, Olaivar, Dalipe, Quimbo, Libanan, Calatrava, Ngu And Ang Testify?
FILE
The 2026 General Appropriations Act was signed into law on January 5, 2026. The signing was intended to signal closure and legislative finality.
Instead, it underscored a question that continues to surface in public discourse: how accountability is enforced when the same names repeatedly appear in discussions involving public funds.
Recent developments at the Senate have brought renewed focus to this issue.
The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, chaired by Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson, has scheduled January 19 as the next hearing in its inquiry into alleged irregularities in flood control projects.
Under Lacson’s leadership, the committee has followed a measured approach, first issuing invitations and, only in the event of non-appearance, moving toward subpoenas and possible warrants of arrest, demonstrating procedural diligence in exercising its oversight mandate.
This sequencing reflects an effort to observe institutional process rather than to rush to conclusions.
Lacson identified those who were invited but did not attend earlier hearings, including former DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan, former DEPEd Undersecretary Trygve Olaivar, former Special envoy Meynard Ngu, and former lawmaker Elizaldy Co.
He also indicated that the committee may consider inviting Leandro Leviste, subject to coordination with House leadership.
The committee’s inquiry has likewise extended beyond personalities.
Clarification has been sought from the Department of Budget and Management and the Office of the Executive Secretary regarding the issuance of a Special Allotment Release Order that enabled the release of ₱50 billion from unprogrammed appropriations on December 27, 2024, a focus that places emphasis on procedure and safeguards.
Against this backdrop, the signing of the 2026 budget appears less like an endpoint and more like a transition, with oversight questions still requiring careful attention.
Separately, media reports over recent months have cited several senior officials connected to agencies handling substantial public funds.
Among those mentioned are former Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman, former presidential assistant Terence Calatrava, former PLLO Undersecretary Adrian Bersamin,TIEZA Director Ronald Ang, Bonoan and Olaivar.
Pangandaman’s presence would be especially important in clarifying how the budget process actually unfolded.
She has previously appeared before the Blue Ribbon Committee when she was still DBM Secretary, providing context and insight into budget procedures.
Her testimony could help separate process from perception and bring much-needed clarity to questions that continue to surround budget insertions and unprogrammed appropriations.
If both Pangandaman and Olaivar appear at the hearing, it will give the public a rare chance to see how key figures, rumored to share a close professional rapport, interact while walking through the details of the budget.
Beyond the headlines, their joint presence could help shed light on the process that so many are eager to understand.
Separately, key figures from the House of Representatives’ past “small committee” on appropriations could also provide valuable insight into past allocations
Among them are former House Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe, former Senior Deputy Appropriations Chairperson Stella Quimbo, and current House Minority Leader Marcelino Libanan, whose testimony could illuminate the 2025 budget insertions and explain how decisions were made and safeguards observed.
It bears emphasis that none of these individuals has been adjudged liable by a court of law. Legislative inquiries and media reports do not constitute findings of guilt.
Nevertheless, repetition invites public inquiry. Budget formulation, fund release, and project implementation are interlinked processes.
When names recur across these processes, calls for explanation and transparency follow naturally.
In this context, the manner in which the Blue Ribbon Committee has framed its inquiry, prioritizing attendance, documentation, and authentication, helps keep the focus on facts rather than conjecture.
Legislative oversight, however, has limits.
The Office of the Ombudsman remains the constitutionally independent body mandated to determine whether administrative or criminal accountability arises from established evidence.
A parallel, impartial review would serve both public interest and individual rights.
Respect for due process does not require the absence of inquiry. It requires that inquiry be measured, even-handed, and complete.
Too often, accountability begins only after controversy becomes unavoidable.
Hearings follow headlines. Resignations are treated as resolution. Structural questions remain unanswered.
The signing of the 2026 GAA could have been accompanied by a broader affirmation of transparency and institutional vigilance.
That responsibility now rests with investigative bodies to see the process through.
This is not a call for judgment without proof. It is a call for clarification through testimony.
When officials are formally identified in legislative proceedings or cited in public reporting, the most credible response is to appear and allow the facts to be examined.
Accountability requires light, not omission.
In public office, trust is not preserved by indignation or selective outrage. It is preserved by transparency.
When explanations rely too heavily on coincidence and too lightly on testimony, credibility erodes.
Ang tanong ngayon ay malinaw. May nagbabantay ba talaga sa pondo ng bayan, o pinipili lang kung sino ang sisilipin at sino ang mga iiwasan?
Kapag paulit-ulit ang mga pangalan at paulit-ulit ang isyu, hindi na ito tsamba.
Pananagutan ang hinihingi ng taumbayan, at ang pananagutan ay nagsisimula sa pagharap sa liwanag.
Instead, it underscored a question that continues to surface in public discourse: how accountability is enforced when the same names repeatedly appear in discussions involving public funds.
Recent developments at the Senate have brought renewed focus to this issue.
The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, chaired by Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson, has scheduled January 19 as the next hearing in its inquiry into alleged irregularities in flood control projects.
Under Lacson’s leadership, the committee has followed a measured approach, first issuing invitations and, only in the event of non-appearance, moving toward subpoenas and possible warrants of arrest, demonstrating procedural diligence in exercising its oversight mandate.
This sequencing reflects an effort to observe institutional process rather than to rush to conclusions.
Lacson identified those who were invited but did not attend earlier hearings, including former DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan, former DEPEd Undersecretary Trygve Olaivar, former Special envoy Meynard Ngu, and former lawmaker Elizaldy Co.
He also indicated that the committee may consider inviting Leandro Leviste, subject to coordination with House leadership.
The committee’s inquiry has likewise extended beyond personalities.
Clarification has been sought from the Department of Budget and Management and the Office of the Executive Secretary regarding the issuance of a Special Allotment Release Order that enabled the release of ₱50 billion from unprogrammed appropriations on December 27, 2024, a focus that places emphasis on procedure and safeguards.
Against this backdrop, the signing of the 2026 budget appears less like an endpoint and more like a transition, with oversight questions still requiring careful attention.
Separately, media reports over recent months have cited several senior officials connected to agencies handling substantial public funds.
Among those mentioned are former Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman, former presidential assistant Terence Calatrava, former PLLO Undersecretary Adrian Bersamin,TIEZA Director Ronald Ang, Bonoan and Olaivar.
Pangandaman’s presence would be especially important in clarifying how the budget process actually unfolded.
She has previously appeared before the Blue Ribbon Committee when she was still DBM Secretary, providing context and insight into budget procedures.
Her testimony could help separate process from perception and bring much-needed clarity to questions that continue to surround budget insertions and unprogrammed appropriations.
If both Pangandaman and Olaivar appear at the hearing, it will give the public a rare chance to see how key figures, rumored to share a close professional rapport, interact while walking through the details of the budget.
Beyond the headlines, their joint presence could help shed light on the process that so many are eager to understand.
Separately, key figures from the House of Representatives’ past “small committee” on appropriations could also provide valuable insight into past allocations
Among them are former House Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe, former Senior Deputy Appropriations Chairperson Stella Quimbo, and current House Minority Leader Marcelino Libanan, whose testimony could illuminate the 2025 budget insertions and explain how decisions were made and safeguards observed.
It bears emphasis that none of these individuals has been adjudged liable by a court of law. Legislative inquiries and media reports do not constitute findings of guilt.
Nevertheless, repetition invites public inquiry. Budget formulation, fund release, and project implementation are interlinked processes.
When names recur across these processes, calls for explanation and transparency follow naturally.
In this context, the manner in which the Blue Ribbon Committee has framed its inquiry, prioritizing attendance, documentation, and authentication, helps keep the focus on facts rather than conjecture.
Legislative oversight, however, has limits.
The Office of the Ombudsman remains the constitutionally independent body mandated to determine whether administrative or criminal accountability arises from established evidence.
A parallel, impartial review would serve both public interest and individual rights.
Respect for due process does not require the absence of inquiry. It requires that inquiry be measured, even-handed, and complete.
Too often, accountability begins only after controversy becomes unavoidable.
Hearings follow headlines. Resignations are treated as resolution. Structural questions remain unanswered.
The signing of the 2026 GAA could have been accompanied by a broader affirmation of transparency and institutional vigilance.
That responsibility now rests with investigative bodies to see the process through.
This is not a call for judgment without proof. It is a call for clarification through testimony.
When officials are formally identified in legislative proceedings or cited in public reporting, the most credible response is to appear and allow the facts to be examined.
Accountability requires light, not omission.
In public office, trust is not preserved by indignation or selective outrage. It is preserved by transparency.
When explanations rely too heavily on coincidence and too lightly on testimony, credibility erodes.
Ang tanong ngayon ay malinaw. May nagbabantay ba talaga sa pondo ng bayan, o pinipili lang kung sino ang sisilipin at sino ang mga iiwasan?
Kapag paulit-ulit ang mga pangalan at paulit-ulit ang isyu, hindi na ito tsamba.
Pananagutan ang hinihingi ng taumbayan, at ang pananagutan ay nagsisimula sa pagharap sa liwanag.
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.
Jan 12, 2026
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
