MANILA, Philippines — Malacañang has delivered a sharp warning to Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice: Do not speak as if you know what President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is thinking.
The Palace rebuke has opened another political front in the widening controversy over allegedly anomalous flood-control projects, after Erice questioned whether Marcos would really allow his cousin, former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, to face possible criminal charges.
Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro rejected Erice’s assertions as theories unsupported by facts and challenged the congressman to produce evidence for his claims.
Castro’s message was blunt: unless Erice has personally spoken with the President about the matter, he should not present his own interpretation as Marcos’ position.
The confrontation comes after Erice questioned the significance of Marcos mentioning Romualdez during his 2026 State of the Nation Address, describing the reference as “optics” rather than proof that the former Speaker would necessarily be held accountable in the flood-control controversy.
Erice challenges Palace narrative
Erice has maintained that he is not speaking for Marcos but is voicing concerns that he believes are being raised by the public.
In comments reported by the Daily Tribune, the lawmaker said his role as a representative includes providing checks and balances on the administration. He argued that the President had repeatedly promised to address corruption linked to flood-control projects but questioned whether those promises would ultimately lead to action against powerful figures.
That distinction, however, did little to ease the Palace’s frustration.
Castro accused Erice of making statements about the President’s intentions without having direct knowledge of what Marcos plans to do.
She also challenged him to substantiate his allegations rather than rely on speculation.
Palace demands evidence
The dispute escalated when Castro questioned where Erice was getting his information about alleged corruption involving government officials and local-government operations.
The Palace official said that if Erice possesses evidence of wrongdoing, he should bring it before the proper investigative authorities, including the Office of the Ombudsman, rather than simply raising the allegations publicly.
That challenge is significant because the flood-control controversy has already moved beyond political accusations and into formal government investigations.
The issue has involved scrutiny of government contracts, project implementation and allegations of ghost or defective infrastructure projects. Earlier investigations by government agencies have identified projects that were allegedly nonexistent, unfinished or defective, while prosecutors and investigative bodies have pursued possible criminal and administrative liabilities.
Why Romualdez is at the center of the controversy
Romualdez, who previously served as House Speaker, has become a politically sensitive figure in the flood-control controversy because of his relationship with Marcos and his former position as one of the most powerful figures in Congress.
During his 2026 SONA, Marcos discussed government action involving officials and contractors linked to the flood-control controversy and indicated that additional cases were forthcoming. Romualdez later said he respected the President’s remarks despite their impact on his family.
That has fueled speculation over whether the administration would pursue cases against individuals politically close to the President.
The Palace, however, has insisted that speculation should not be confused with established fact.
A political fight inside a corruption investigation
The Erice-Castro clash illustrates how the flood-control controversy is increasingly becoming both a legal and political battle.
For the administration, the issue is about demonstrating that investigations will proceed based on evidence and due process.
For critics such as Erice, the bigger question is whether the government’s anti-corruption campaign will reach politically influential personalities—or stop short when the investigation approaches the administration’s own allies and relatives.
That tension has made every statement from Malacañang and lawmakers increasingly consequential.
The Palace has also previously maintained that the Ombudsman is the proper institution to assess allegations and determine whether sufficient evidence exists to pursue cases against individuals implicated in the controversy.
The question now hanging over Marcos
At the heart of the political confrontation is a question that neither side can easily avoid:
Will the Marcos administration’s promise to pursue those responsible for questionable flood-control projects ultimately extend to powerful political figures, regardless of their connections?
For now, Malacañang says accusations must be backed by evidence.
Erice, meanwhile, continues to argue that public officials have a duty to question the administration and demand accountability.
And as investigators continue examining the flood-control controversy, the political pressure on Marcos is unlikely to disappear.
The next major test may not be another political statement.
It could be the evidence—and who eventually finds themselves facing formal charges.
Leave a Reply