Amid the growing controversy over alleged irregularities in the government’s flood control projects, a complex narrative continues to emerge—a narrative that revolves not only around documents and reports, but also around public trust, the accountability of officials, and the question of how far the search for the truth will go.

Currently, retired Supreme Court associate justice Andres Reyes Jr. is the only remaining member of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), following the resignations of other commissioners. His continued presence on the commission seems symbolic of an institution that continues to shoulder heavy responsibilities despite a shrinking number of its officers. Together with ICI executive director Brian Keith Hosaka and former PNP chief retired Gen. Rodolfo Azurin Jr., they continue to tread the path of fact-finding, even though it is fraught with challenges.

Established in September through Executive Order No. 94, the ICI was tasked by President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. to investigate reports of so-called “ghost” flood control projects of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). In the first phase of the investigation, the commission focused on 15 private contractors who allegedly bagged about P545 billion worth of projects from 2022 to 2023. Later, the scope of the review was expanded to include all government infrastructure projects in the past ten years.

To date, the ICI has submitted eight interim reports to the Office of the President and the Office of the Ombudsman. In these reports, there are recommendations for further investigation and possible filing of cases against several former DPWH officials, private individuals, and other personalities allegedly involved in the issues under investigation. However, it remains clear that these are only part of the process, and the final decision still rests with the institutions concerned.

Despite government statements about holding accountable, only a few have faced formal charges. There are also reports that several personalities are temporarily absent from the country, which has further fueled speculation and public discussion. “Where is justice?” some ask, while others call for patience and respect for the legal process.

After her resignation, former ICI commissioner Rossana Fajardo called for the transfer of investigative and possible prosecution duties to agencies with clear mandates, such as the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman. At the same time, she supported bills in Congress that seek to create a permanent Independent People’s Commission or Independent Commission Against Infrastructure Corruption—an institution that, she said, would have sufficient power and clear authority.

While these bills were still being discussed in the legislature, the so-called “DPWH leaks”—documents purportedly containing lists of proposed projects by several lawmakers for upcoming budgets—emerged. According to some observers, the release of these lists opened a new phase of discourse, and for others, it seemed to divert attention from the earlier issue of the “Cabral files.”

The “Ca bral files,” first mentioned by Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste, are said to contain important records on proposed insertions in DPWH projects. “There is a list on the computer of a former official that may help in understanding what happened,” Leviste said in a forum. He added that the preservation of the documents and the safety of potential witnesses are important.

Amidst all this, the public has also been unable to avoid noticing several incidents that have been linked to the complex issue, including reports of unusual events involving some officials. While the investigation is ongoing and caution remains in reaching conclusions, it is clear that these incidents have added to the gravity of the matter.

Ultimately, the clash between the “Cabral files” and the alleged “DPWH leaks” is not just a question of which document is more important. It is a story of the search for clarity amidst conflicting information, of a call for accountability, and of the public’s continued desire to see a government willing to confront difficult questions.

As the hearings, deliberations, and reviews continue, one thing is clear: the truth, no matter how hard it may be to find, will continue to be sought. And in this process, the trust of the people is at stake—a trust that can only be maintained through clear action, open communication, and respect for the law.