Photo credit: Congress PH

The flood control controversy has burst into full view, raising familiar questions about how the national budget really works. Hundreds of billions were allocated for flood control.

Yet, the public now hears of substandard works, questionable outcomes, and projects that do not match the scale of the funds released.

As always, the first instinct is to look at Congress, at insertions, amendments, and political maneuvering.

But that is only half the story.

In his video message, former Speaker Martin Romualdez draws a clear line: Congress appropriates, the Executive implements. Once the budget becomes law, he says, everything that matters procurement, bidding, contract awards, disbursement falls under the Executive branch.

On paper, he is correct.

The Executive runs the machinery of government.

Agencies design projects, conduct bidding, award contracts, and release funds. If something goes wrong, it happens there.

Romualdez is not just explaining. He is redirecting.

“I will not be the scapegoat,” he says. “I will not go quietly, and I will not go alone.” He challenges investigators to follow the evidence all the way.

Fine.

Then let us take that seriously.

Following the evidence all the way means going deep into the Executive chain. That includes the Department of Public Works and Highways and the Department of Budget and Management.

It means examining how projects were designed, packaged, bid out, and awarded.

It also means looking at leadership across time.

Former Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, former Public Works Secretary Manuel Bonoan, and former Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman all sat at critical points in that chain.

Systems and decisions do not begin and end in one moment.

It also includes officials such as former House Deputy Secretary General Sofonias Gabonada Jr., whose name has surfaced in connection with the ongoing flood control investigation.

But it does not stop at the top.

The operating layer must also be examined. Undersecretaries such as Adrian Bersamin, Trygve Olaivar, and Terence Calatrava form part of the machinery that translates plans into projects.

Bids and awards committees and technical teams do not act in isolation.

Processes do not move on their own. People move them.

Following the Executive all the way means exactly that.

But it does not end there.

It also means going back to the legislative side, including bicameral and small committee deliberations in both House and Senate where final allocations are shaped.

That layer cannot be ignored.

Because here is where the Romualdez argument falters.

The claim rests on a clean separation between appropriation and execution, as if Congress simply approves a budget and steps aside.

That is not how the system works.

Thousands of projects are identified, inserted, and prioritized during the legislative process. By the time they reach agencies, they already reflect political decisions.

No insertion, no implementation.

That is the uncomfortable truth.

Yes, legislators do not conduct bidding. Yes, they do not sign contracts. But they shape what gets funded.

In practice, questions have long been raised about how contractor selection intersect with political influence in infrastructure projects.

To say accountability begins only at implementation is to draw the line too late. To say it ends at Congress is to draw the line too early.

Romualdez himself admits this is not a one person story. That is why selective accountability is dangerous.

If we are serious, then we follow everything.

We follow how projects entered the budget. We follow how they were executed. We follow the money from allocation to disbursement.

Anything less is incomplete.

So yes, follow the Executive.

But follow Congress too.

Because in the end, this is not about one branch. It is about a system that moves together.

Sa huli, parang isang malaking kusina ito. Nasa itaas ang may-ari na nagtatakda ng direksyon. Nandiyan ang executive chef na gumagawa ng menu at plano. Sa ilalim niya ang mga sous at head chefs at kusinero na naghahanda, nagluluto, at naglalabas ng pagkain.

Kapag may inihain na hilaw o sunog, matabang o maalat, hindi puwedeng isa lang ang sisihin. Hindi puwedeng sabihin na kusinero lang ang may kasalanan kung may mali na sa plano pa lang.

At hindi rin puwedeng chefs lang ang sisihin kung sa pagluto mismo nagkaproblema.

Sa kusinang ganito kalaki, magkakabit ang lahat mula konsepto hanggang plato. Kaya kung hahanapin ang katotohanan, huwag lang tingnan ang naglabas ng pagkain.

Balikan natin ang buong kusina mula may-ari, mga kasosyo, chefs, hanggang sa huling humawak ng sandok at plato!