Lacson is Leviste's 'lodi. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of value‑laden, flattering, or pejorative wording that nudges readers toward a particular judgment.

1) "Anti-infrastructure corruption crusader Batangas 1st district Rep. Leandro Legarda Leviste..." 2) "they're cut from the same cloth." 3) "Lacson is known for his hardline stance against corruption, 'pork barrel', and shenanigans with the use of public funds." These phrases frame Leviste and Lacson in strongly positive, heroic terms without qualification or attribution, and describe opponents’ actions as "shenanigans" (a dismissive, negative term).

3 suggestions

Replace "Anti-infrastructure corruption crusader" with a neutral description such as: "Batangas 1st district Rep. Leandro Legarda Leviste, who has publicly campaigned against alleged corruption in infrastructure projects..."

Remove or qualify "they're cut from the same cloth" with a more factual statement: "Leviste said he looks up to Lacson and seeks to emulate his anti‑corruption advocacy."

Change "Lacson is known for his hardline stance against corruption, 'pork barrel', and shenanigans with the use of public funds" to a more neutral, attributed form: "Supporters and some observers describe Lacson as a consistent critic of corruption, 'pork barrel' allocations, and alleged misuse of public funds."

Appeal to authority

Using the reputation or status of a person as primary evidence that a position or behavior is correct or virtuous.

1) The article repeatedly emphasizes Lacson’s status and reputation: "Senate President Pro Tempore [Panfilo] 'Ping' Lacson... inspiration behind everything I am doing now" and "Lacson is known for his hardline stance against corruption... He is also a former Philippine National Police (PNP) chief." 2) Leviste’s anti‑corruption efforts are implicitly validated by his association with Lacson, rather than by independent evidence of effectiveness or outcomes.

3 suggestions

Add concrete, verifiable details about Leviste’s anti‑corruption actions and their outcomes (e.g., investigations opened, cases filed, policy changes) instead of relying mainly on his association with Lacson.

Clarify that Lacson’s reputation is contested or contextual: for example, "Lacson, who has built a public image as an anti‑corruption advocate, has long opposed 'pork barrel' funds" and, if relevant, mention any major controversies or criticisms to balance the appeal to his authority.

Avoid framing Leviste’s credibility as stemming from Lacson’s mentorship; instead, present their relationship as one element among others: "Leviste says he has sought advice from Lacson on identifying irregularities in public works budgeting."

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s narrative or perspective while omitting or minimizing other relevant viewpoints or context.

1) The article presents Leviste’s and Lacson’s anti‑corruption narratives without any counter‑views, responses, or broader context from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), from Abelardo Calalo, or from independent experts. 2) "This was all in the backdrop of the flood control projects corruption scandal, which Leviste helped bring public attention to particularly after former DPWH Batangas 1st District Engineer Abelardo Calalo tried to bribe him..." – the alleged bribery is stated as fact, with no mention of Calalo’s side, legal status of the case, or DPWH’s official response. 3) The piece does not mention any criticisms, controversies, or limitations related to Leviste’s or Lacson’s anti‑corruption records.

4 suggestions

Include DPWH’s official statement or response regarding the alleged corruption and the entrapment operation, or note if they declined to comment.

Clarify the legal status of the case against Abelardo Calalo (e.g., "Calalo has been charged with [specific charges]; the case is pending in [court], and he has [pleaded/not yet entered a plea].").

Add any publicly known criticisms or alternative perspectives on Leviste’s and Lacson’s anti‑corruption efforts, such as concerns about political selectivity, effectiveness, or past controversies, to provide a fuller picture.

Explicitly distinguish allegations from established facts by using language like "alleged," "according to the complaint," or "as claimed by Leviste" where appropriate.

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant facts or context that would allow readers to form a more complete and independent judgment.

1) The article references a "flood control projects corruption scandal" but provides no details: scale of the alleged corruption, who else is implicated, status of investigations, or institutional responses. 2) It notes that Leviste "has taken it upon himself to expose the DPWH budget per congressional district" but does not explain what irregularities were found, whether independent bodies confirmed them, or how other lawmakers responded. 3) It mentions that Leviste "eventually pressed charges" against Calalo but omits the current status and outcome of those charges.

4 suggestions

Briefly summarize the key facts of the flood control projects scandal: amounts involved, agencies and officials implicated, and any official investigations or audit findings.

Provide information on whether Leviste’s budget disclosures led to formal audits, legislative hearings, or policy changes, and whether other legislators or watchdog groups corroborated his findings.

Update or specify the legal status of the case against Calalo (filed charges, court proceedings, any rulings) and clearly distinguish between allegations and adjudicated facts.

If such information is unavailable, explicitly state that details are pending or not yet public, rather than implying a settled narrative.

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex issue to a simple, one‑sided narrative that glosses over nuance and competing factors.

1) The narrative frames corruption in infrastructure largely as a matter of individual bad actors (e.g., "former DPWH Batangas 1st District Engineer Abelardo Calalo tried to bribe him") and heroic reformers (Leviste and Lacson), without discussing systemic issues, institutional checks, or broader political dynamics. 2) The slogan "Ang tama, ipaglaban; ang mali, labanan" is presented as a guiding maxim without exploring how such principles are applied in complex, ambiguous real‑world cases.

3 suggestions

Add brief context on systemic factors in infrastructure corruption (e.g., procurement rules, oversight mechanisms, historical patterns of DPWH controversies) to show that the issue is not solely about individual morality.

Include mention of other institutions involved in anti‑corruption efforts (e.g., Commission on Audit, Ombudsman, civil society groups) and how Leviste’s actions interact with these bodies.

Clarify that slogans and personal commitments are one part of anti‑corruption work, and note that outcomes depend on legal processes, institutional reforms, and evidence‑based investigations.

Narrative fallacy

Constructing a neat, cause‑and‑effect story that may overstate coherence or intention, making events seem more straightforward than they are.

The article implicitly constructs a linear story: Leviste admires Lacson → seeks his guidance → exposes DPWH budgets → uncovers a bribery attempt → has the engineer arrested → presses charges. This sequence suggests a clear, almost heroic arc, without acknowledging uncertainties, other actors, or alternative explanations (e.g., internal DPWH dynamics, prior investigations, or political rivalries).

3 suggestions

Explicitly separate the timeline of events and avoid implying that each step directly caused the next unless there is clear evidence: use neutral connectors like "around the same time" or "subsequently" instead of implying strong causality.

Mention other relevant actors or processes (e.g., law enforcement agencies that conducted the entrapment, prosecutors who evaluated the case) to avoid framing the story as driven almost solely by Leviste’s personal initiative.

Acknowledge uncertainties or gaps in knowledge, such as: "It is unclear to what extent Leviste’s disclosures alone prompted the entrapment operation, as law enforcement agencies have not detailed all factors that led to the sting."