After reviewing updates on the investigations and actions being taken to address corruption in flood control projects, it is difficult to understand why the contractor appears to be the primary party being prosecuted — and possibly jailed. Many familiar with the construction industry would agree that, in most cases, the contractor is not the perpetrator of corruption but its victim.

Under normal procedure, a contractor undergoes strict evaluation and is prequalified by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) before being allowed to bid. If the contractor submits the lowest bid and meets all requirements, the contract is awarded and project implementation begins. Payments are based strictly on actual accomplishment and completed work. The contractor is expected to finish the project within the approved contract amount and time frame, while earning a reasonable profit.

Corruption enters the picture when government officials demand a share of the payments for completed work — often through threats of delayed or withheld releases unless graft money is paid. This practice is no different from protection money demanded by criminal groups from legitimate businesses. Such illegal deductions slash the contractor’s operating funds, leaving whatever remains of the contract amount as the sole resource to finish the project. In that situation, the contractor is forced to survive and manage with reduced funds, making him more victim than perpetrator.

When does the contractor become the perpetrator?

Does a contractor become corrupt by submitting an overpriced bid? No. If a bid exceeds a certain percentage of the DPWH estimate, it is automatically disqualified. Does the contractor become corrupt by failing to complete the project? No. Payments are tied to accomplishment. Unfinished work is unpaid, contracts are canceled, performance bonds are forfeited, and contractors are blacklisted — effectively ending their livelihood. Again, the contractor emerges as a casualty of corruption, not its architect.

A twist in perspective

There is, however, a crucial shift in how the issue is framed. When the offense is no longer corruption but theft — the outright stealing of government money — the contractor ceases to be merely a victim and becomes linked as an accomplice.

That distinction matters.

Let us stop speaking vaguely about corruption. Let us call it what it is: theft. Not just corrupt officials, but thieves in government. Let accountability fall where it should. Let the axe fall. Let the heads roll.

More power to the Ombudsman.

Sincerely,

Dennis Abcede

Founder, D. Abcede Construction Management