In any any public controversy, restraint matters as much as resolve.
Allegations deserve scrutiny—but only when they are anchored on evidence, not inference.
Contractor Pacifico “Curlee” Discaya has now plainly denied claims that he served as a “front” for former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez in the alleged purchase of a luxury property in Makati City.
His statement was straightforward: he has seen Romualdez only once at a public event and has never spoken to him.
That denial is significant—especially because it comes from the very person whose name has repeatedly been invoked to imply a hidden link.
Discaya did not stop there.
Despite being detained at the Senate in connection with the flood control controversy, he said he is even willing to “own up” to the Makati property—even if it is not true—so it can be reviewed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council.
He insisted he has nothing to hide and welcomed scrutiny based on records and due process.
Earlier, Romualdez had already denied any involvement in the alleged transaction, with his counsel stating that the claim lacks factual basis and documentary support.
To date, no deed of sale, title, bank trail, or sworn testimony has been presented to connect him to the property or to Discaya’s dealings.
Yet some critics continue to press the narrative—often repeating insinuations without presenting concrete proof.
This is where caution is needed. Investigations are meant to clarify facts, not to amplify conjecture.
Public discourse benefits when questions are pursued responsibly and conclusions are drawn only after evidence is weighed.
The Senate inquiry remains a proper forum for truth-seeking, and all sides should be given the chance to be heard.
At the same time, fairness requires that individuals not be implicated by association alone.
Names should not be dragged into controversies simply because they are politically prominent or convenient targets.
If there is evidence linking Romualdez to the alleged property purchase or to any irregularity in flood control projects, it should be presented clearly and under oath.
If there is none, then continuing to imply wrongdoing serves no one—not the public, not accountability, and not the institutions tasked with upholding both.
At this point, Discaya’s categorical denial removes a key pillar of speculation.
It should prompt critics to pause, recalibrate, and return to the fundamentals: facts first, documents second, conclusions last.
That is how credibility is preserved—and how justice is best served.
