Photo credit: Senate PH

Here in our province, justice is simple. Kung may tumatakbo, pigilan mo muna bago pa makatakas.

You don’t wait for the thief to disappear beyond the mountains before calling for help. Once they’re gone, the damage is permanent.

That’s why the request by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla for the Bureau of Immigration to issue a foreign‑travel restriction on 77 people publicly linked to anomalous flood‑control projects is not just lawful , it is common sense.

Critics shriek “abuse” or “overreach,” as if telling suspects: “Don’t leave the country” already violates human rights.

But in major jurisdictions, international travel restrictions are routine in large‑scale corruption probes.

When trillions of pesos of public funds are at stake, spread across regions, contractors, officials, middlemen, and politicians, the State has both right and duty to keep those under investigation within reach of the law.

If the Ombudsman fails to act, we know what will happen. Many of those publicly linked to the case will surely leave. This isn’t theory. it is already happening.

As of now, key players such as former Rep. Zaldy Co. and former DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan are abroad, according to media reports.

Those with pending warrants from the Sandiganbayan have not yet been taken into custody. Some remain free despite being publicly linked to the investigations.

This scandal may even reach past and present lawmakers, maybe senators next, perhaps more congressmen, maybe cabinet members, those with money, private jets, foreign contacts, and diplomatic‑style “medical trips.”

Without a travel ban, we should not be surprised if many vanish beyond subpoena before investigations advance.

What makes this particularly urgent is a statement by Sen. Ping Lacson: according to him, Bonoan is the “missing link,” the only person who, if he returns and cooperates, can directly connect former Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin to alleged budget‑insertion anomalies.

But Bonoan is already outside the Philippines. Without a restriction in place, the chance to get that testimony, and with it a key to unraveling deeper corruption, may be lost forever.

We are no legal experts. Sure, critics can question the propriety or grounds of a travel ban. But until the Supreme Court declares it illegal, the Ombudsman's request stands.

More importantly: suspects are held and accountability becomes possible. That, ultimately, is a victory for the people.

The law gives the Ombudsman broad authority to protect the integrity of investigations. Travel restrictions are not punishment, they are protective measures.

Mobility determines accountability.

How can the government build a case if suspects are enjoying cocktails in Singapore or shopping in Paris while witnesses wait, documents disappear, and evidence gets stale?

Presumption of innocence belongs to court verdicts. Travel restriction is a logistical tool. It does not presume guilt.

It presumes reality: those with means to escape often will.

What Remulla’s move signals is what Filipinos seldom see: decisiveness.

For years, public frustration has grown as big fish swim free just when cases ripen. Someone whispers a tip. Someone books a flight. Someone arranges “medical leave abroad.”

This time, maybe the escape hatch will finally be locked.

If you are innocent, a temporary travel restriction changes nothing. If you insist on leaving while under formal investigation, you raise a question: what do you have to hide?

In the province, we judge actions by honesty and intent.

Remulla’s request reflects a simple intent: huwag hayaang makatakas ang dapat managot.

If we are serious about fighting corruption, real corruption, with real trillions and real networks, then the law must empower authorities to keep suspects within reach before they scatter like birds from a felled tree.

This is not oppression. Not overreach. It may be the first sign in years that the State is discovering what it sorely lacked: common sense justice.

Sa gitna ng kaguluhan, pera, at impluwensya, simple lang ang tama, huwag hayaang makatakas ang may sala.

Mahirap bang intindihin yun?

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.