A review of the Cabral case: What the news revealed, what remains unknown

MARIA CATALINA “Cathy” Cabral, Former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) undersecretary had become a familiar face in the media coverage of the alleged anomalies connected to flood control infrastructure in September 2025. Media coverage identified Cabral as a crucial figure in the investigations, presenting the singular role she played overseeing the planning and program implementation of DPWH’s Public-Private Partnership (PPP). The case should provide a greater understanding of the role of individual officials in the bureaucracy and the power these hold in the disbursement of funds for infrastructure development. 

September-November 2025: Senate hearings and emerging allegations

Coverage picked up in intensity after Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson publicly implicated Cabral, saying that after the May 2025 elections, the DPWH official reached out to the office of then Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III to ask the latter what he wanted inserted in the 2026 national budget. 

Reports clarified that the claim was made during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearings as lawmakers had begun to probe alleged irregularities in flood control projects. 

Media noted that Cabral was repeatedly summoned and questioned during the session and indicated that investigators believed that Cabral played a central role in deciding which infrastructure projects would have priority for funding and implementation. 

On September 18, DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon announced that he accepted Cabral’s courtesy resignation, which she had filed two days prior. News accounts linked her resignation to the controversy, although official statements did not refer to any wrongdoing. 

Reporting became more detailed in November 2025, when former DPWH undersecretary Roberto Bernardo testified before the Senate that Cabral, with the authorization of then public works secretaries Mark Villar and Manuel Bonoan, had the power at the DPWH level to “remove, include, add, deduct, or modify” items in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) for infrastructure. This testimony, as reported by the media, suggested that Cabral exercised discretionary authority over budget items.

Media reports also relayed Bernardo’s account of how this authority operated in practice. According to his testimony, district engineers submitted lists of proposed projects to DPWH officials, after which Cabral facilitated and ensured the inclusion of selected projects in the NEP so they would receive funding. While reports described this process in detail, which constituted an abuse of authority, they generally stopped short of clearly stating whether it was lawful. 

Bernardo further testified that Cabral directly communicated with lawmakers to discuss which projects they wanted included in the DPWH budget. Coverage presented these claims largely through quotation and attribution, but rarely explained how such interactions departed from or violated standard budgeting procedures, nor did it consistently highlight whether the actions described were allowed under the law.

On December 19, a day after Cabral’s death, Rappler revisited her role in DPWH, placing these allegations within a broader pattern of infrastructure-related controversies and underscoring how her position allowed her to bridge technical planning and political negotiation.

December 2025: Cabral’s death shifts focus of coverage

Media coverage took a dramatic turn in December 2025, when Cabral was found unconscious in a ravine along Kennon Road in Benguet on December 18 and later declared dead by authorities.

Cabral’s death immediately drew intense public attention. Early reporting laid out the known facts while also documenting the speculation that followed, ranging from suspicions of foul play to claims of a staged or “fake” death, given Cabral’s access to sensitive information on DPWH controversies.

Subsequent reports, however, relayed police findings confirming that the body was indeed Cabral’s and that she died from injuries due to the fall.

Media quoted several House representatives expressing concern that Cabral’s death could mean that crucial testimony and evidence of corruption had “died with her.”  

Late December 2025: Custody of evidence and investigative priorities

Cabral’s death did not end the news trail. Media attention turned to what evidence Cabral may have left behind. Initial reports noted the Office of the Ombudsman’s order to Benguet authorities to take custody of and preserve Cabral’s cellphone and other electronic devices. The Ombudsman also subpoenaed to the DPWH to turn over Cabral’s office computer for investigation.

These reports underscored a key shift in coverage, from focusing on Cabral herself to examining whether documentary evidence could still support investigations into alleged budget manipulation.

The Cabral Files surface

Prior to her death, Cabral had reportedly been cooperating with the Independent Commission on Infrastructure (ICI) in its investigation into flood control projects. According to Cabral’s lawyer, Atty. Mae Divinagracia, her client, left behind documents contained in six boxes, allegedly listing DPWH funding allocations to congressional districts from 2023 to 2025. After Cabral’s death, reports account that the boxes of documents were missing.

Public debate intensified after Batangas 1st District Representative Leandro Leviste surfaced following Cabral’s death, claiming he had obtained copies of some of these documents. Media reports detailed Leviste’s assertion that the files were official DPWH records showing budget proponents and insertions in the 2025 national budget—a budget that critics had described as bloated with discretionary or “allocable” funds.

On December 24, Leviste posted on Facebook what he said were DPWH budget documents for district engineering offices nationwide. Journalists, however, did not treat the disclosure at face value. Coverage also documented DPWH officials’ counterclaims that Leviste had forcibly taken files and even a computer from Cabral’s office—claims Leviste denied, insisting he had authorization from both Cabral and Secretary Dizon. Dizon publicly denied granting such permission and questioned the authenticity of the documents.

January 2026: Files go public, authenticity in question

As the dispute deepened, media reports highlighted statements from Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano, who warned that soft copies of documents held by third parties could lose evidentiary value due to the risk of tampering. He also said Leviste had shown investigators only limited portions of the files—an allegation Leviste disputed, saying he presented full summaries and spreadsheets.

Media reports noted that Leviste had been referencing the documents since October and had shared copies with some media outlets, including the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). PCIJ later published its own findings, reporting that members of the Marcos family received the largest share of allocable infrastructure funds from 2023 to 2026. (See “PCIJ: From 2023 to 2025, Marcos kin received highest amount of ‘allocable funds,’ a new form of pork barre“) 

Rappler’s report identified those who had access to the files prior to Cabral’s death, indicating that Rep. Leviste was not the sole recipient of the documents. It also pointed out that government officials, especially Marcos allies, kept dismissing the need to authenticate the files. 

GMA News Online cited a constitutional expert who stressed that the Cabral files, if genuine, are public records subject to public scrutiny and should not be concealed. This framing shifted the issue from a political dispute to a broader question of transparency and accountability in governance.  

This year, Leviste released on January 21 an unofficial copy of the Cabral files on his official Facebook page, listing projects under the 2025 NEP across regions. Media coverage again emphasized that while the documents were now public, their authenticity and full evidentiary value remained unresolved and were still subject to official investigation.

Cabral Files in Context

The Cabral case involves more than the dramatic story of a government official’s rise in her position and authority, her fall from grace, and sudden death. It provides enough leads for the media to establish the process that determines the allocation of massive funds for infrastructure and the political influence that shapes budget decisions. The case reveals how the government handles or fails to ensure accountability.  

The so-called Cabral files, if authenticated, could provide crucial evidence about the discretionary powers of officials and the extent of their influence over the disbursement of funds intended for development infrastructure. The reports have spotlighted the central role of the DPWH in the development of the countryside and extending the benefits of public service to the people in remote as well as vulnerable urban areas. The case has demonstrated the power of information, enabling the people to hold lawmakers as well as bureaucrats to account. 

The challenge is clear for the media:

The complete release of documents should involve journalists in the forensic review of information that Cabral’s devices reveal. Media should follow up on the investigation, analyze the files in context, and explain to the public the gaps that foster corruption in the very systems of government designed to deliver improved infrastructure so more Filipinos can live better lives.