The recent revelations by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. are nothing short of a red flag in our nation’s infrastructure undertakings: 15 contractors were awarded roughly P100 billion — around 20 percent of the entire P545-billion flood-control program — from July 2022 to May 2025.
This concentration of such a massive share in a tiny fraction of players raises immediate concerns about fairness, transparency, and the potential for patronage. It is particularly suspicious that five of the contractors have projects across nearly all regions of the archipelago, which is highly unusual in construction, where capabilities and regional presence tend to be more limited and localized.
Coupled with findings of thousands of projects without clear descriptions — over ₱P350 billion worth lacked details on whether they were dikes, drainage, or pumping stations — and multiple contracts had duplicate costs across different areas, the irregularities appear glaring.
That the President instituted the public platform — sumbongsapangulo.ph — to encourage citizens to report stalled or poor quality projects, is a commendable move. It harnesses civic vigilance as a supplement to institutional oversight.
But while these first steps are encouraging, much more is needed to ensure accountability. An independent forensic audit by the Commission on Audit, jointly overseen by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman, should be commissioned to ensure both financial scrutiny and possible legal action if malfeasance is found.
Project-by-project transparency must also be implemented by proactively publishing comprehensive information on all flood-control initiatives, including scope, schedules, budgets, contractor history and performance metrics. Public access to this data would allow watchdog groups and the media to monitor irregularities in real time.
It is also vital to cross-reference hazard maps with the distribution of projects to determine whether allocations match actual flood-risk zones. Regions like Pampanga, which face the highest risk, should logically have proportional project volumes — yet current data show inconsistencies.
If allocations do not correlate with need, then the motives behind such distribution must be questioned. Furthermore, a conflict-of-interest and beneficial ownership review should be undertaken to probe whether any of the top 15 firms have links — either past or present — with government officials or political figures.
Public declarations of the beneficial owners should be legally mandated for all major government contractors to remove any doubt about impartiality in contract awarding.
Finally, legislative oversight via Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearings or a joint congressional investigation should be considered, with the power to subpoena company executives and Department of Public Works and Highways officials.
These proceedings, conducted publicly, would add an extra layer of accountability that an audit alone may not achieve. The sumbongsapangulo.ph platform should also be strengthened with clear enforcement pathways so that credible citizen reports automatically trigger inspections, reviews and sanctions when warranted.
The fact that such large-scale irregularities came to light only via an internal review begs the question: how many more remain hidden? Addressing this requires more than surface-level transparency — it demands a full, empowered probe, rigorous institutional involvement and sustained public engagement.
The people deserve to know whether their tax money is building genuine flood resilience or merely reinforcing favored networks. Only then can we claim to be cleaning not just our rivers, but the system itself.