WE again write to dispel yet another malevolent attack by Rigoberto Tiglao against Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson, in his July 31, 2026 column, this time insinuating — again, without basis — that the increase in Senator Lacson’s net worth was linked, among other things, to brokering the land for the new Senate building.
Apparently undeterred by our previous fact-checking of his claims, Tiglao now tries to fill in the details of the legitimate real estate transactions and other private business ventures that Senator Lacson cited in explaining the rise in his net worth, with the method those of Tiglao’s caliber apparently know best — guesswork at best, and falsehood at worst.
Tiglao’s insinuation that Senator Lacson may have been the broker of the land purchased in 2018 for P1.8 billion for the new Senate building is laughable. Senator Lacson worked on the New Senate Building as part of his official duties as chairman of the Senate Committee on Accounts at the time.
It is also worth noting that the Senate purchased the property from the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) — a transaction between two government entities. So how could Senator Lacson have “brokered” it, much less profited from it? His decades-long, unblemished track record of integrity speaks for itself.
To turn that official responsibility into an insinuation of a private business transaction requires not evidence but a particularly fertilizer-rich imagination.
Even more laughable is Tiglao’s questioning why Senator Lacson did not include in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) his stint as independent director of Prime Infrastructure Capital Inc. from July 2022 to 2023.
While Tiglao claims to be a journalist, a real one would know that a SALN covers only the period during which a person is a public official. Senator Lacson was a private citizen between July 2022 and 2023.
More importantly, a real journalist would know how to look for facts instead of substituting them with guesswork — the latter being what the industry might describe diplomatically as fertilizer, and more directly as bullshit.
Significantly, Tiglao himself concedes that “none of this proves Lacson did anything illegal,” thus torpedoing the premise of his own column. Having acknowledged the absence of evidence, he nevertheless proceeds to invite readers to draw precisely the conclusion that his own words say cannot be supported.
Tiglao may have conveniently forgotten that the burden is on the accuser to substantiate allegations, not on the subject to disprove every hypothetical scenario the accuser can imagine. If he has evidence that any property transaction involving Senator Lacson violated tax, registration, or disclosure laws, he should present it to the proper authorities instead of relying on innuendo. The absence of publicly available details identifying private assets is not, by itself, evidence of unexplained wealth. Nor does couching an accusation as a series of questions insulate its author from accountability for what he publishes.
Tiglao’s column thus appears to follow a curious formula: reach the conclusion first, then search for something — anything — that might support it. In short: “Ah basta!” That is not an investigation; it is confirmation bias with a deadline.
Meanwhile, Tiglao questions my existence, at least as the person who signed the previous response, because he supposedly cannot find a sufficient “digital footprint” for me. So, by Tiglao’s journalistic standard, if Google or Meta cannot find you, you do not exist. The media industry has another term for this: trabahong tamad.
Readers of The Manila Times deserve evidence, not insinuation; facts, not conjecture. Repeating suspicions in increasingly elaborate prose does not transform them into proof.
We hope this sets the record straight on yet another fictional yarn spun by Tiglao. Thank you.
Joel Locsin
Media Relations Officer
Office of Sen. Panfilo Lacson
