Senator Imee Marcos on Tuesday, February 3, asserted that the Senate has a responsibility to examine the alleged cash delivery scheme involving former military personnel, despite questions over its credibility.
“When accusations of such seriousness are made under pain of perjury, the duty of our institution is not to ignore them, but to examine them,” Marcos said in a statement.
Her remarks came after Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson raised doubts about the logic and “basic mathematics” behind the claims of 18 ex-soldiers who alleged they delivered ₱805 billion in cash to officials on instructions of former Ako Bicol Party-list Representative Zaldy Co.
Marcos acknowledged that the claim was “incredible,” but argued that doubts only strengthen the case for scrutiny.
“An inquiry protects not only the public interest, but also the reputations of those accused. Should the investigation ultimately reveal that the allegations are fabricated, then justice equally demands that those who maliciously dragged the names of others into controversy be held accountable,” she said.
She added that the Senate should not allow its members’ reputations, including that of the Senate President, to be tarnished without due process.
“Whether the allegations are proven true or exposed as false, truth can only emerge through investigation. The question therefore remains: why should there be any fear of an inquiry?” Marcos asked.
In a privilege speech, Lacson clarified that his skepticism was not meant to belittle the testimonies but to ensure that the information meets rational and logical standards.
“To be clear, while every imputation of a crime warrants our attention, none deserves our blind deference. In the same manner that everyone has a right to be heard, it is not a license to mislead,” Lacson said.
He pointed out the logistical impossibility of moving 805 metric tons of paper bills, plus another 53.6 metric tons of empty suitcases, within two years — describing it as a “logistical nightmare.”
Lacson warned that if such claims were used as propaganda, they must at least be “logical and mathematically possible.”