Imee Marcos linked to ₱2.5 billion allocables under ‘Cabral files,’ says Ping Lacson

Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Sunday, January 11, invoked the adage that “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” as he flagged ₱2.5 billion in allocables linked to Imee Marcos in the 2025 National Expenditure Program (NEP), while questioning her criticism of alleged “pork” in the 2026 budget.

Lacson said the figures were based on documents he received from the camp of the late Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) undersecretary Catalina Cabral, which he said detailed allocations tied to Sen. Marcos during the 2025 budget process.

“Marcos had allocables worth ₱2.5 billion in the NEP according to the Cabral files. Most allocables were moved from the NEP to the 2025 GAA via insertions in the bicam where Sen. Marcos had at least the same amount based on DPWH records,” Lacson said in an interview on DZBB radio, adding that “while part of the insertions were flagged for later release, part of her FLR allocables had been released.”

Lacson said Marcos’ criticism of the 2026 budget rang hollow given her role in the 2025 process.

“She makes a lot of noise criticizing the 2026 budget for having ‘pork’ but she had ‘pork’ in the budget, at least in the 2025 GAA,” Lacson said, noting that Marcos was a member of the Senate contingent to the bicameral conference committee at the time.

Lacson added that Marcos did not raise the issue during the bicameral deliberations.

“In the first place, she was a member of the Senate contingent in the bicameral conference committee. Why didn’t she raise the issue that there was pork? We heard nothing from her then, when she was in the bicam,” Lacson said.

Lacson also pointed to Marcos’ objections to the ratified 2026 budget, which she rejected over increases in assistance programs she labeled as soft pork, including Medical Assistance to Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients (MAIFIP) and Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS).

The senator also said Marcos had previously participated in aid distributions.

“She was so fond of attending such distributions, and now she says there is ‘pork giniling’ in the budget? You know, if you don’t have any moral ascendancy, just keep quiet because it will come back to you. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” Lacson said.

Lacson also took issue with what he called baseless criticisms by Marcos against the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, which he chairs, particularly amid its investigation into the alleged flood control project scandal.

Lacson rejected claims that he barred senators from linking personalities such as Martin Romualdez to the issue, saying Marcos did not attend any hearings he chaired. He also defended limits on questioning time as necessary to give all senators a chance to ask questions.

“In the first place, what pressure is she talking about when she never attended any of the hearings I chaired?” Lacson said. “I have said before that the best response to nonsense is silence. But when she starts insulting, I cannot disregard it anymore. By insulting the Blue Ribbon Committee, she is undermining its integrity. Why does she not attend and ask questions?”

Asked what might be behind Marcos’ actions, Lacson replied with a quip: “She might want to apply as the Senate’s ‘meow-meow.’ We don’t want that but it seems someone is intent on applying for the post,” he said.

Lacson said he remains puzzled by efforts he said are aimed at disrupting the Blue Ribbon hearings, citing concerns raised by Marcos and Rodante Marcoleta.

“The problem is that there are those who want to disrupt the investigation. I don’t know what their end game is,” he said.

Meanwhile, Lacson declined to speculate on claims that alleged “pork” could be used to influence House members in any impeachment move against Sara Duterte.

“Under the Constitution, the House has the power to impeach, and the Senate has the power to convict or acquit. So since we could be senator-judges in a potential impeachment case, we cannot comment especially on the merits of the case,” he said.