Batangas 1st District Rep. Leandro Leviste on Friday stood firm on the legitimacy of what he described as a Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) budget project list dating back to 2023, insisting that the documents he made public are authentic and should be subjected to public scrutiny.

During a nearly two-hour press conference, Leviste addressed doubts raised by Presidential Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro, who earlier questioned the authenticity of the documents he posted on social media.

“Usec Claire will make a fool of herself once Sec. Vince confirms the authenticity of the list I possess,” Leviste said.

The lawmaker said there is no reason to withhold the documents from the public, noting that some of the information, such as the General Appropriations Act (GAA) allocations per district, is already publicly accessible.

Leviste said the DPWH budget from 2023 to 2026 amounts to about P3.5 trillion, with an average of P15 billion per district across 253 congressional districts.

“I hope the P15 Billion per district DPWH budget went to good projects,” Leviste said in Filipino.

He stressed that the key issue raised by the documents is how much budget is allocated per district representative and how former DPWH Undersecretary Maria Catalina “Cathy” Cabral computed those figures.

According to Leviste, Cabral disclosed during their first meeting a high-level budget allocation formula known as the Baseline Balanced Managed (BBM) parametric formula, which he said is adopted in the preparation of the National Expenditure Program (NEP). He noted that the acronym mirrors the initials of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr..

Leviste argued that budget allocations do not appear to be based on population size, land area, or actual need, citing districts with smaller populations that receive larger allocations than more populous areas.

“What is becoming apparent is that the budgetary allocation is not actually based on population, land area, or necessity. This is because there are a few districts receiving massive allocations despite having smaller populations compared to larger districts that have significant needs but receive smaller allocations,” Leviste explained.

“Therefore, it would be beneficial to disclose each district's budget to the public, and let the people judge for themselves what the basis was for the DPWH allocations in their respective budgets,” he added.

Leviste said the data he released could be used by the Office of the Ombudsman and the Independent Commission on Infrastructure (ICI) in their investigations into alleged flood control project irregularities.

“ICI and the Ombudsman are doing investigations regarding irregularities, linking for example the proponents of projects to the contractors who are eventually awarded the projects. The budget data is a starting point, there might be some cases where prima facie, the proponent is linked to the contractor and that is an irregularity,” he said.

He added that agencies such as the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) could also use the data to determine whether financial transactions were involved.

“In other cases there might have to be some further research on if there is a relationship between the proponent and the contractor, and maybe AMLC can help find out if there was a financial transaction behind the insertion,” he explained.

Leviste said he initially expected DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon to release the list publicly in September, noting that the ICI and Ombudsman only obtained copies last November after he personally provided them.

He added that he would have preferred the documents to be released earlier to avoid compromising his work as a legislator, stressing that his push is about transparency rather than personal credit.

Leviste also said that some of the documents cited by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) in November originated from him.

Asked whether his actions were meant to avoid conflict with fellow lawmakers, Leviste revealed details of a phone call he received during a press conference on October 16, which he said was related to his district’s budget.

“I do not want my district’s budget to be affected by what I am doing now. However, I am confident because it is only right that the public knows the budget for every district,” Leviste said, as he became visibly emotional.

“The fact that I was called regarding my district's budget right in the middle of our press conference is proof enough that budgets are also allocated for purposes other than a district’s actual needs; at times, it is even used as leverage over Congress,” he added.

Leviste said the call involved his request for additional classroom funding, which he later received. He clarified, however, that this did not constitute bribery, stressing that he continues to criticize the DPWH budget system.

“If you read between the lines that means: You don’t question our budget and we will give you your budget,” Leviste said.

According to the lawmaker, he wants a complete overhaul of the DPWH budget system to ensure rural districts receive adequate funding.

“The fact that I am continuing to question the DPWH budget system is me, showing that I will not be bought by any budget,” Leviste said.