By Robert B. Roque, Jr.
The death of former DPWH Undersecretary Cathy Cabral has reopened a familiar wound in Philippine public life, reviving memories of the late DILG Secretary and former Armed Forces chief Angelo Reyes — not because the circumstances of their deaths are identical, but because both occurred at moments when unresolved questions of power, accountability, and corruption loomed heavily over their public service.
Angelo Reyes’s death in 2011 came at the height of intense scrutiny over alleged irregularities in military funds. His passing transformed a corruption inquiry into a national reckoning, exposing not only the fragility of reputations built over decades but also the immense psychological burden placed on officials once controversy becomes relentless and public. For many Filipinos, it was a moment when governance ceased to be abstract and became painfully human.
Cabral’s death evokes similar reflections. As a senior official in the Department of Public Works and Highways — an agency long associated with vast budgets and politically sensitive infrastructure projects — she occupied a position where knowledge is power and discretion is currency. Her passing is particularly unsettling because it comes amid unresolved questions surrounding the controversial flood-control projects that have drawn public outrage and investigative attention.
With Cabral’s death, there is a growing perception that critical knowledge may have been buried with her — including who truly benefitted from questionable flood-control allocations and how decisions were made within the bureaucracy. In corruption cases, especially those involving layered approvals and diffuse responsibility, insiders often carry the connective truths that documents alone cannot fully reveal. When such individuals are suddenly gone, accountability becomes more difficult, and justice becomes even more elusive.
Recognizing this risk, the Office of the Ombudsman has reportedly directed authorities to secure and preserve Cabral’s mobile phone and electronic devices, signaling that even in death, potential evidence must be protected. Investigators may yet find digital trails — messages, call logs, files — that could shed light on networks of influence and decision-making processes that extend beyond a single official. In an era where governance increasingly leaves electronic footprints, devices can speak when people can no longer do so.
The parallel with Angelo Reyes lies not in assigning guilt, but in confronting a recurring national dilemma: how corruption investigations intersect with human limits. Both cases force uncomfortable questions about whether the Philippine political system and social media know how to pursue accountability without becoming crushingly punitive, and whether due process is adequately shielded from spectacle, rumor, and moral absolutism.
These deaths also expose a deeper institutional weakness. When systems rely too heavily on individuals holding sensitive knowledge — rather than transparent, well-documented processes — truth becomes fragile. The loss of one official should not threaten the unraveling of an entire investigation. Yet time and again, it does.
Ultimately, the deaths of Reyes and Cabral compel reflection not just on personal tragedy, but on systemic failure. They challenge the state to ask whether it has built institutions strong enough to outlast individuals, investigations resilient enough to survive loss, and a culture of accountability that does not exact a fatal human cost.
* * *
SHORT BURSTS. For comments or reactions, email firingline@ymail.com or tweet @Side_View via X. Read current and past issues of this column at https://www.thephilbiznews.com