Congressmen in Laguna province are now in defensive mode. The reason is understandable. Some legislators, past and present, have been implicated in the massive flood-control scandal involving billions of pesos in public funds allegedly diverted through fictitious, overpriced, substandard, or unnecessary projects.
It is shaping up to be one of the biggest corruption scandals in Philippine history.
And there is good reason for Congress to be under scrutiny.
Under the Constitution, Congress exercises the power of the purse. Its members have the authority to propose, deliberate on, and approve appropriations intended to fund projects that supposedly benefit their constituents.
Evidence and testimonies have also emerged alleging that some legislators and other public officials received kickbacks, delivered in suitcases or even in boxes, in exchange for facilitating questionable projects.
These allegations must be investigated. No legislator should be above the law.
But focusing almost exclusively on Congress risks missing a much bigger part of the problem.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SCANDAL
Simply blaming Congress for the flood-control mess is barking up the wrong tree.
Congress may authorize and appropriate the funds, but it does not build the projects.
That responsibility belongs to the Executive Branch, particularly the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
The distinction is fundamental.
The DPWH is responsible for implementing projects, conducting procurement, supervising contractors, inspecting construction, monitoring progress, and certifying whether projects have actually been completed according to specifications and within budget.
District engineers and other responsible officials are on the ground. They are in the best position to know whether a project exists, whether the materials used meet specifications, whether the work was properly completed, and whether public money was spent as intended.
If a flood-control project exists only on paper, who certified its completion?
If a contractor was paid for work that was never done, who inspected and approved the accomplishment?
If a project was overpriced or substandard, who allowed it to pass through the agency’s inspection and payment process?
These are questions that cannot be answered by pointing fingers at congressmen.
You cannot steal billions through ghost or substandard projects without people inside the implementing agency either participating, facilitating, or failing in their duty to prevent it.
The responsibility of DPWH officials must therefore be examined with the same intensity, if not greater, as that of the legislators involved.
A CULTURE OF CORRUPTION?
Recent testimony before the Sandiganbayan in connection with the flood-control scandal has brought these concerns into sharper focus.
Former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo reportedly testified that kickbacks or so-called “commitments” were not confined to flood-control projects but allegedly extended to other DPWH projects as well.
In his written testimony, Bernardo claimed that these commitments ranged from 10 to 25 percent of project costs, and in some cases could reach 30 percent, depending on the arrangements among the parties involved.
Even more disturbing was his assertion that this practice had been prevalent in the agency since he joined DPWH as a district engineer in 2002.
These are serious allegations that must be independently investigated and tested in court.
But if Bernardo’s account is substantiated, we are not dealing with isolated cases of corruption. We are looking at the possible institutionalization of a system in which public infrastructure projects become opportunities for private enrichment.
That is a far more disturbing prospect.
It would mean that corruption is not simply committed by a few bad officials. It is enabled by a system that allows public funds to be systematically diverted while those entrusted to protect them look the other way.
The question is: How many people participated, how many knew, and how many chose to remain silent?
WRONG PRIORITIES, WRONG ALLOCATIONS
In Laguna, the issue of questionable public spending goes beyond the alleged kickbacks and billions supposedly pocketed by unscrupulous officials.
It also raises questions about priorities.
Consider San Pedro City.
Under the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), approximately P890 million was allocated for flood-control projects, compared with only P155 million for multipurpose buildings and facilities supporting social services.
Of that P155 million, only three projects, totaling P15 million, involved multipurpose buildings for schools and daycare centers.
In 2024, the disparity was similarly striking: P834 million for flood control versus only P121 million for multipurpose buildings.
In Santa Rosa City, the figures were equally revealing.
The 2025 GAA allocated approximately P789 million for flood-control projects, compared with P95 million for multipurpose buildings and P20 million for road rehabilitation.
Notably, none of the listed multipurpose-building projects involved schools.
In 2024, Santa Rosa received P1.490 billion for flood control, compared with P195 million for multipurpose buildings. Of the latter, only one project specifically involved a research laboratory building for Santa Rosa City College, with an allocation of P70 million.
These figures raise legitimate questions about how infrastructure priorities are determined and whether allocations genuinely reflect the most pressing needs of communities.
Flood control is undeniably important, especially in a country frequently battered by typhoons and flooding. But it must not become a convenient catch-all justification for enormous appropriations that escape meaningful scrutiny.
The question is not simply how much money was allocated. It is whether the projects were necessary, properly located, reasonably priced, and actually delivered.
And if billions were allocated to questionable projects in Laguna, it is imperative to investigate not only the legislators who may have facilitated them but also the DPWH officials who processed, implemented, inspected, and approved them.
There must be no selective accountability.
Nor should the public automatically accept the testimonies of former officials seeking immunity or hoping to escape prosecution. Their statements must be corroborated by documentary evidence, financial records, project inspections, and the testimony of other witnesses.
Nobody should be allowed to turn whistleblower simply to avoid being held accountable for his own participation.
TIME TO HOLD DPWH ACCOUNTABLE
In San Pedro City, recent exposes have raised questions about flood-control projects allegedly misplaced or implemented in locations that do not adequately address the flooding problems of affected communities.
If these allegations are true, who decided where these projects should be built? Who approved the plans? Who inspected the work? And who certified that public funds were properly spent?
Should congressmen alone bear the blame?
A group of concerned sectors in San Pedro City is reportedly organizing an alliance to demand accountability from DPWH officials who may have participated in, facilitated, or tolerated irregularities involving flood-control projects in Laguna.
A member of the group, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed concern that while legislators have come under intense public scrutiny, the accountability of DPWH officials at the provincial and district levels has not received comparable attention.
“It is not enough to investigate the legislators who proposed or may have benefited from these questionable projects. We must also go after the people inside DPWH who made these wholesale abuses of public funds possible,” the member said.
The group is calling on lawyers, engineers, professionals, youth organizations, civic groups, and ordinary citizens throughout Laguna to join the growing demand for a thorough and impartial investigation.
As the member put it:
“Hindi puwedeng lusot ang DPWH engineers dahil nasa kanilang mga kamay ang implementasyon, inspeksyon, at sertipikasyon ng mga proyekto.”
The member added that if the allegations of widespread corruption within the agency are substantiated, cleaning up DPWH must go beyond dismissing a few officials or prosecuting selected personalities.
It must mean dismantling the system that allowed corruption to flourish.
NO ONE SHOULD BE SPARED
Let us be clear.
Congressmen who manipulated appropriations, demanded commissions, or benefited from anomalous projects must be investigated and prosecuted.
But DPWH officials who facilitated ghost projects, approved fraudulent accomplishments, tolerated substandard construction, or conspired with contractors and politicians must face the same consequences.
Contractors, intermediaries, approving authorities, and other public officials who participated must likewise be held accountable.
The investigation must follow the money, examine the paper trail, inspect the actual projects, and identify everyone who played a role.
The power of the purse does not give legislators the right to steal. And the authority to implement public projects does not give DPWH officials the right to turn infrastructure funds into personal wealth.
The Filipino people are not interested in a political blame game in which one group points fingers at another while the real perpetrators escape.
They want the truth. They want their money back. And they want those responsible prosecuted.
So, are we barking up the wrong tree?
Perhaps the better question is: Why are we looking at only one tree when an entire forest of possible corruption needs to be investigated?
The Filipino people deserve nothing less than the whole truth and accountability without exemptions.
(To volunteer on the call for public support to investigate DPWH officials, you may call OpinYon Laguna at 09704870402 or send an e-mail at oy.laguna@gmail.com)
#OpinYonLaguna #CoverStory