MANILA, January 7, 2026 — The legal counsel of the late Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral has revealed that her client prepared six boxes of documents intended to clear her name in the ongoing flood control scandal.

According to lawyer Mae Divinagracia, Cabral had promised to turn over the files before her death in December 2025. However, the handover never took place, and the whereabouts of the documents remain uncertain.

“Those documents would show na (that) she was just really following orders coming from Secretary Bonoan, directing her to vet and review certain projects if it is qualified for funding,” Divinagracia told GMA News.

The so‑called “Cabral files” reportedly contained detailed records of DPWH flood control projects and budget allocations from 2023 to 2025. Divinagracia said the papers were meant to demonstrate that Cabral acted only within her mandate and did not personally benefit from the projects under scrutiny.

The lawyer confirmed that Cabral’s family does not have possession of the documents, raising questions about whether they were misplaced or deliberately withheld. Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste, who has been vocal about alleged irregularities, claimed the lawyer’s remarks validated his earlier assertions about the existence of the files.

Cabral’s sudden death, officially reported as an accident, has intensified calls from lawmakers and watchdog groups to continue the investigation into billions of pesos worth of flood control projects. Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla previously assured the public that probes into the alleged anomalies would not end with Cabral’s passing.

The flood control mess involves allegations of “ghost projects,” overpricing, and questionable allocations across several regions. Cabral, who served as DPWH undersecretary for planning and public-private partnership, was a central figure in Senate and House hearings before her death.

Her lawyer’s disclosure about the missing files adds another layer of intrigue to the scandal, with stakeholders demanding transparency and accountability.

Death Should Not End Scrutiny

The death of a key figure should never soften an investigation. It should sharpen it.

When allegations involve billions in public funds, accountability cannot pause out of respect, sympathy, or discomfort. Institutions are not on trial. Systems are. And systems do not die with one person. If anything, the absence of a central figure removes noise and demands cleaner answers.

History shows a troubling pattern. Once a principal actor is gone, cases slow. Urgency fades. Missing documents turn into missing momentum. The focus drifts from facts to feelings. That is how scandals survive.

Investigations exist to establish truth, not to assign convenient endings. Claims of “following orders” require proof. Proof lives in records, approvals, budget trails, and internal communications. If those materials are missing, the response should be escalation, not acceptance.

Public trust depends on continuity. Continuity of inquiry. Continuity of pressure. Continuity of standards. Flood control failures affect lives long after hearings end. Communities pay the price of weak oversight every rainy season.

Justice does not become optional because a witness is gone. Responsibility does not dissolve because a name can no longer speak. Institutions owe the public more than closure. They owe clarity.

So the hard question remains, and it must be asked plainly: when death enters a scandal, will the state dig deeper for the truth, or quietly allow silence to finish the job?