THE Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) has started the process that could lead to the forfeiture of several hectares of illegally reclaimed land on the Taguig City side of Laguna Lake, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said on Sunday.
In a radio interview, Lacson said the PRA has confirmed his and his team's initial findings that the Taguig government had not secured a single permit for the reclamation.
"They are moving toward an investigation that would lead to a PRA board resolution to start the process toward forfeiture proceedings. If reclamation is undertaken without a permit from the PRA, which is the agency mandated to regulate reclamation and issue the necessary permits, the logical conclusion is that the land should be forfeited in favor of the national government. And the PRA confirmed that there was not a single permit," Lacson said.
"The reclaimed land may be benefiting residents, as former Senate president Alan Peter Cayetano claims, but the proper procedures and laws still have to be followed, including securing the necessary permits. The PRA said the city government did not secure a single permit," he said.
Lacson claimed the Cayetanos had for several years been disguising the "unabated and illegal" reclamation on the Taguig side of Laguna Lake as flood control and mitigation projects.
He said Sen. Francis Escudero had told him that when he was governor of Sorsogon, he secured the necessary permits from related agencies, including the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), before undertaking reclamation there.
Lacson also said the PRA's earlier investigation into the reclamation was stalled after Cayetano pressured the agency's representatives during the November 2025 deliberations on the Office of the President's (OP) budget. The PRA is an attached agency of the OP.
He cited information from PRA officials that Cayetano called them to his office and threatened to suspend deliberations on the OP's budget.
"The investigation was stalled but now the PRA is very enthusiastic. I am not sure if the PRA will generate revenue once the land is forfeited in favor of the national government," Lacson added.
He said further verification is needed on how much reclaimed land may be forfeited for the national government.
The last count "several years ago" showed there were 47 hectares that were reclaimed, but another 37 hectares had been added recently, Lacson said.
He said the PRA tried to check the extent of the reclamation but encountered difficulty because its personnel were being monitored.
He recalled how one PRA official brought his children to a street-food event in the Taguig area and used the occasion to fly a drone, allowing the PRA to get a clearer view of the extent of the reclamation.
For now, Lacson said he and his team had gathered evidence on at least 32 anomalous flood control projects in the area, after coordinating with the PRA and Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
After he and his team have turned over to the Ombudsman the evidence on at least five case studies of anomalous flood control projects in Taguig — along with the affidavits of at least two witnesses who cooperated in the investigation — Cayetano should now prepare to explain his side to the Ombudsman, he said.
"We are talking about how many ghost projects were funded by taxpayers' money as shown by the evidence," Lacson said.
He said at least four contractors who stopped cooperating in the investigation could face possible plunder charges.
Lacson said it is now up to Blue Ribbon Committee Chairman Erwin Tulfo to decide if the panel should look into the Taguig flood control projects.
"It's his call as chairman. My concern is that people are angry, especially now because they have experienced flooding again. They are asking where the hundreds of billions or trillions of pesos in taxpayers' money for flood control projects went," he said.
Lacson also pointed out that some of the witnesses he and his team have talked to voiced fears of being harassed if they are summoned to a public hearing.
"The witnesses asked if they could be referred to the Ombudsman instead of being called to a public hearing. I agree with them, because they might be exposed prematurely if they are called to the public hearings," he added. Catherine Valente
