JANUARY 15, 2026 — When former House Speaker Martin Romualdez’s name got dragged into the flood control scandal yet again — this time through whispers of a supposed property purchase in Makati using the controversial contractor-couple Curlee and Sarah Discaya as “fronts” — his camp wasted no time firing back. Lawyer Ade Fajardo, speaking for Romualdez, dismissed the allegations as “outright baseless.”

“Rep. Romualdez has not met the Discayas and has only heard of them based on what is being said in media reports. As such, the claim in the report about using the Discayas as a front in a property purchase is outright baseless,” Fajardo stressed.

That’s a strong denial. But here’s the catch: in Philippine politics, denials are often just the beginning of the story, not the end.

Pacifico “Curlee” Discaya himself testified before Congress in September 2025. 

“Gusto ko lang pong linawin na wala po akong direktang transaksyon. Hindi po ako nagkaroon ng anumang klaseng transaksyon kay Speaker Martin Romualdez,” he said.

(I would like to clarify that I didn't have any direct transaction. I didn't have any kind of transaction with Speaker Martin Romualdez.)

This sworn statement is now part of the official congressional record. If we take it at face value, then Romualdez’s camp has every reason to call the allegations baseless. 

But why, then, do these insinuations keep resurfacing? Why does Romualdez’s name continue to hover around the Discayas like a shadow that refuses to fade?

The Discayas, after all, are no ordinary contractors. Their nine-company empire has been accused of anomalous, substandard, even ghost public works projects. In earlier Senate hearings, they admitted being coerced into paying kickbacks to lawmakers — some allegedly close to Romualdez. 

That’s where the public curiosity spikes. If not direct transactions, then what about indirect ties? Influence? Proximity?

Senator Panfilo Lacson, chair of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, put it bluntly: “Noise does not convict. Neither does it indict even who may be perceived as the most guilty in the … flood control project saga. Only evidence does.”

Fair enough. But in a country where political noise often drowns out evidence, the public is left wondering: Is this noise meant to distract us, or is it the sound of something bigger rattling beneath the surface?

Romualdez insists he respects institutional processes and trusts that a fair inquiry will clear his name. 

The Senate probe resumes January 19. Will it finally cut through the fog, or will it simply add another layer of intrigue to a scandal already thick with suspicion?

How many more flood control projects, overpriced contracts, and alleged kickbacks must we endure before accountability stops being a moving target? Because at the end of the day, whether baseless or not, every allegation chips away at public trust — and trust, once broken, is harder to rebuild than any flood barrier.

In Philippine politics, what sinks reputations isn’t always evidence — it’s the weight of unanswered questions.

Do you believe Romualdez’s denial puts the issue to rest, or does it raise even more questions about how deep the flood control scandal really goes?

(Image: Philippine News Agency)