04/03/2026
OPINION: THE TRUTH ABOUT "SOP" AND FUND "BUYING"
In the Philippines, “SOP” in infrastructure projects is not treated as plain rumor. It is seen as routine. Contractors expect it. Middlemen anticipate it. Politicians are accused of it the moment concrete is poured. The system has long been shaped by the belief that commissions are part of the machinery.
This is the environment where today’s anti-corruption campaigns unfold. Loud, public, selective in the eyes of many. History has taught Filipinos to be skeptical. Often, the smaller players are exposed while those with deeper networks remain beyond reach. Whether that perception is always fair or not, it persists because it has precedent.
In Benguet for instance, the conversation has taken a familiar turn.
Rep. Eric Yap is inevitably linked to the same narrative. For some, the assumption is automatic. Infrastructure means SOP, and SOP means personal gain. Public office in the Philippines carries that burden of presumption. Evidence becomes secondary to reputation.
Yet accounts from sources within local circles suggest a more complicated picture. They claim that Yap does not personally receive the commissions typically associated with projects. Instead, they say whatever margins or negotiated returns that arise from the system are redirected toward additional assistance programs such as additional medical aid, emergency support, educational help, and services that constituents regularly seek from his office.
Whether one believes this or not depends largely on trust. But the allegation itself raises a deeper issue. What does governance look like inside a system widely perceived to be transactional?
District allocations are limited. Benguet, like many provinces, competes for additional funding. Securing more infrastructure money often requires persistent lobbying, appeals to senators, negotiations with national agencies, and alignment with broader political currents. These processes are rarely simple. They demand political capital, influence, and sometimes personal resources.
Sources further claim that Yap has spent personal funds in efforts to secure additional financing for projects beyond the regular district allocation. If accurate, this underscores the structural challenge faced by local leaders. Deliver more than the allotted budget allows, or accept stagnation.
None of this excuses corruption. Public funds are sacred. Personal enrichment at the expense of taxpayers remains indefensible. But it is also true that the national political framework has normalized certain practices to the point that clean lines are blurred. When commissions are expected and additional funds are secured through negotiation-heavy channels, the boundary between survival and complicity becomes difficult to define.
The public, understandably, views all of this with suspicion. Decades of scandals have conditioned citizens to doubt. Perception often becomes verdict. A politician may deny personal gain, but in a culture shaped by repeated betrayals, denial carries limited weight.
Still, governance must ultimately be measured by tangible outcomes. Are roads being built and maintained? Are flood controls functioning? Are schools and health services improving? Are constituents receiving assistance when they seek help? This is a part of being accountable rather than being distractions.
The deeper problem may not rest solely on one official or one district. It may lie in a national political culture where infrastructure is inseparable from negotiation, where funding expansion is rarely straightforward, and where anti-corruption drives are perceived as uneven. As long as that system persists, every project will carry suspicion, and every officeholder will stand under a cloud.
Benguet voters, like citizens everywhere, deserve transparency. They deserve proof, not whispers. They deserve leaders who can both deliver development and withstand scrutiny.
But they also deserve an honest conversation about the structure of governance itself. Until the system changes, perception will continue to shape reality and no official, regardless of intention, will escape the shadow that the word “SOP” casts over Philippine politics.
GP Abela/DG
