In the weeks leading up to Christmas, a nation already juggling economic worries, political fatigue, and the emotional pull of family and faith confronts the unsettling news of the death of DPWH Undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral. She was tied to allegations of a high-profile plunder case involving trillions of pesos allegedly looted from government coffers. The PNP launched a probe, and the NBI also mounted a parallel investigation. The immediate task is to determine what happened and who, if anyone, bears responsibility for the circumstances surrounding her passing. But beyond the precise facts of the moment lies a deeper question about what we Filipinos should rightly demand from their institutions when the stakes are so high and the horizon so shadowed by doubt.
Corruption scandals are, unfortunately, not novel plotlines but repeated chapters in the Philippines. When a high-ranking public official dies amid serious allegations, the public’s instinct is to seek both truth and reassurance. While both probes are beneficial for cross-checking findings, they also open space for concern about coordination, independence, and the pace at which results reach the public. The timing—this close to Christmas—adds a merciless, mortifying dimension to the truth of her death and the larger truth for the conduct that led to the quarrels over funds and favors. We deserve to have confidence that the state is pursuing justice with seriousness, not theatrics, especially when the country is in the season of reflection and possible healing.
Should investigators simply confirm Cabral’s identity and move on, or should they seize the moment to pursue the broader questions that her case evokes? Identity is foundational; without it there is no case to pursue. Yet identity confirmation does not exhaust the obligation of investigators to illuminate the larger web of circumstances—the motives, the potential links to others, and the weaknesses in governance that allowed such a situation to arise in the first place. A responsible investigation must confirm who the deceased is and relentlessly chase the truth about the broader case, the structures that enabled it, and the individuals who may have benefitted from it.
Anything less risks treating a tragedy as a mere footnote to a political drama rather than as a catalyst for systemic reform. Of course, any forensic step must consider resource constraints, privacy considerations, and the integrity of due process. The path forward should be conducted without political influence or perception thereof, because WE DO NOT DESERVE a narrative that supports any particular preconceived conclusion.
We must demand a sustained commitment to rigorous procedure, to disciplined cross-agency collaboration, and to reporting that educates as it informs. In the spirit of due process—the true gift of any democracy—publicly delineated steps that leave no room for doubt shall be the standard rather than optional luxuries. If there is any silver lining to a moment of mortification, it lies in the resolve to convert shock into reforms that fortify institutions against the temptations and opportunities that corruption creates.
We deserve more than explanations. We deserve confidence that systems are strong enough to pursue truth, to hold the powerful to account, and to restore faith in governance. They must do the hard work of truth-telling and reform even in the most mortifying moments. If Christmas is a time for renewal, let the investigations renew public confidence in governance. Let the bells toll for accountability, not mere statements. The gift our nation needs is thorough, verifiable truth—not a box opened for show. We cannot celebrate under the mistletoe while the stench of misconduct fouls the air of our justice system. Until the probes are transparent and the guilty are named, our festivities remain a performance rather than a celebration.|
