
MANILA — The government’s investigation into alleged irregularities in flood control projects is far from over, Malacañang said, stressing that the detention of contractor couple Sarah Discaya and Pacifico Discaya over the Christmas period marks only an early phase of a broader accountability drive.
Presidential Communications Office (PCO) Acting Secretary Dave Gomez said the administration of President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. would continue efforts to hold all individuals involved in irregularities in infrastructure projects accountable.
“The flood control investigation does not end on Dec. 25. It’s only been a little over four months,” Gomez said, referring to the ongoing probe into alleged irregularities and unexplained wealth linked to the Discaya couple and other individuals involved in anomalous projects.
Gomez compared the pace of the current probe with past corruption cases, citing the pork barrel scam involving graft convict Janet Lim-Napoles.
“The Napoles probe took almost a year before people were sent to jail. There will surely be more thrown behind bars in the New Year,” he said.
Napoles was accused of masterminding the pork barrel scam for at least a decade, allegedly using a network of bogus nongovernment organizations to siphon off public funds involving about P10 billion in lawmakers’ Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to ghost projects in exchange for kickbacks.
Addressing comparisons between the Discaya couple and figures involved in previous corruption scandals, Gomez said the scale of the couple’s alleged ill-gotten wealth exceeds past cases.
“Some quarters are calling the Discaya couple as the new Napoles, but their unexplained wealth is ten times over. Both spent Christmas in detention,” Gomez said.
Sarah Discaya was arrested on December 18 over a P96-million ghost flood control project in Davao Occidental and is detained at the Lapu-Lapu City Jail. Her husband, Pacifico Discaya, is being held at the Senate premises after being cited in contempt by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee for inconsistent testimony.





Leave a comment