Due process before disclosure

The uproar over the so-called Cabral list reveals less about one document than about how easily public trust is shaken when normal processes are ignored.

- 

In controversies involving alleged anomalies in the national budget—especially one as contentious as the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA)—truth is not established by virality but by evidence tested against law. The confusion and doubts that now surround the list could have been avoided had basic legal and time-honored processes been observed from the very start.Documents presented do not necessarily speak for themselves. Under several court rulings, a private document must first be authenticated—shown to be what its proponent claims it to be—before it can carry probative weight. Authentication may be done by the testimony of a witness with personal knowledge, by proof of original document, by admission of the adverse party, or by circumstantial indicia or indications of trustworthiness. Without these, courts treat documents as hearsay or, at best, as unproven allegations. This is not legal nitpicking; it is the minimum safeguard against fabrication and misunderstanding.