If Thursday’s Bucana Bridge visit was truly “non‑political,” as Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA) chair Leo Tereso Magno insisted, then the President’s own remarks made that claim impossible to defend.
The contradiction was not subtle. While Magno stressed that the visit was merely a routine inspection, the President proceeded to describe the Bucana Bridge as one of his administration’s “legacy projects” and spoke as though the project’s timeline began under his watch — despite the bridge having been initiated during the previous administration and funded entirely through a Chinese grant.
This is where the problem lies. Not in the visit itself, but in the failure of those around the President to ensure he was properly briefed.
Magno, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), and the agencies directly handling the project had one basic responsibility: to provide the President with accurate timelines and context. That did not happen. And when a President steps onto a project site without the correct information, the result is predictable — misstatements that appear self‑serving, fuel public backlash, and undermine the very message officials claim to protect.
The online criticism that followed was not manufactured outrage. It was a direct response to a preventable error. When a project is already politically sensitive — China‑funded, Duterte‑era, and highly visible — accuracy is not optional. It is essential.
Had the President been clearly apprised of the project’s origins, he could have acknowledged continuity in governance, credited the previous administration appropriately, and still highlighted the bridge’s importance under his term. Instead, the narrative veered into “legacy project” territory, contradicting the very assurances that the visit was apolitical.
This is not merely a communications lapse. It is a governance lapse.
Public trust erodes not only when leaders overclaim, but when the institutions around them fail to safeguard accuracy. Magno and the DPWH should have ensured that the President walked onto that site with the full, correct timeline — not talking points that exposed him to criticism and muddied the message.
If officials want the public to believe that such visits are non‑political, then they must first do the work of keeping the facts straight.
