Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson expressed concern over a cash transaction process that was not explained at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing last Thursday, September 18.

During the hearing, Contractor Sally Santos, owner of Syms Corporation, testified that she delivered P457 million in cash to former Assistant District Engineer Brice Hernandez in his office last March 24. Hernandez admitted to receiving the money and disclosed that it was regularly collected by his superior and predecessor, former District Engineer Henry Alcantara.

In the exclusive interview of DZRH’s Damdaming Bayan, Lacson questioned why a contractor is the one paying the District Engineering Office, when it should actually be the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) that pays the contractor.

“At nakapagtataka, ito hindi nasagot kahapon, na bakit yung contractor na nagbabayad sa District Engineering Office? Dapat ang nagbabayad yung DPWH papunta sa contractor, kasi cash,” said the senator.

Lacson noted that the payments are made in cash, which is suspicious, as such transactions are normally done through fund transfers, especially since all parties have bank accounts with the Land Bank of the Philippines.

He further explained that when the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) releases funds, the money is downloaded to the District Engineering Office. From there, it should be transferred to the account of Santos, who maintains a separate bank account.

However, he finds it questionable that after the funds are deposited into Santos’ account, she withdraws them in cash and does not return the money to Hernandez.

Lacson also emphasized that this key detail was never explained, raising a question, “Saan ba yung P457 million na yun? Anong mga proyekto yun at bakit cash?”

Moreover, Lacson hopes to get the answers that were not addressed previously in the next hearing.

He also believes that if Hernandez can acquire additional evidence—such as a receipt or ledger, showing he gave 30% to the people involved—it could strengthen the case for the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) to file charges with the Ombudsman.