Kalinga advocate questions P170-M slope protection projects

BAGUIO CITY — An anti-corruption advocate in Kalinga has called for greater transparency over several mountain slope protection projects, raising questions about their cost and procurement process.

Natty Baliwag Pallayoc Aguac Bayubay, representing the group Save Kalinga, presented a public audit based on procurement records from the Department of Public Works and Highways Lower Kalinga District Engineering Office.

The audit flagged a pattern involving seven slope protection projects along the Tabuk City, Kalinga to Banaue, Ifugao via Tanudan, Kalinga to Barlig, Mountain Province Road, a key mountain corridor used by motorists in the Cordillera region.

According to the report, the seven projects cover a combined distance of only 464 meters but carry a total contract value of P170.627 million.

Based on the figures, Bayubay said the government appears to be spending about P367,000 for every meter of slope protection.

He noted that the total length is less than half a kilometer of mountainside, raising questions about whether such a cost per meter is justified even considering the specialized engineering required for rock bolts and steel mesh netting.

A major concern raised in the report is the possibility of contract splitting.

Bayubay pointed out that almost all of the individual projects carry an identical price tag of P25 million, while several project sites are located very close to one another, with some segments separated by as little as 55 meters.

Under standard procurement rules, dividing a large project into several smaller contracts is often scrutinized as it may be used to bypass certain bidding or oversight requirements.

Bayubay clarified that the findings are not a direct accusation but a formal call for transparency and accountability from the district engineer and the Bids and Awards Committee.

While acknowledging that slope stabilization is crucial for motorists in landslide-prone areas, the Save Kalinga group said taxpayers deserve a clear explanation on why the projects were divided and why the costs appear uniform.

The group stressed that public funds must be properly accounted for to ensure they are used efficiently for the benefit of the community.