FERDINAND Alexander “Sandro” Marcos Jr 
NEWS

Sandro tops DPWH allocations

Within Region I, Ilocos Norte’s 1st District posted a P12.91-billion allocation for 2025, the highest in the region and among the largest nationwide for that year.

Carl Magadia

Data from the so-called “Cabral files” released by Batangas 1st District Rep. Leandro Legarda Leviste placed Ilocos Norte’s 1st District, represented by Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos Jr., as the single biggest district-level recipient of Department of Public Works and Highways funding in the 2025 budget.

The files also showed Central Luzon (Region III) receiving the largest cumulative share of DPWH capital outlays from 2023 to 2026, totaling P406.9 billion, surpassing allocations to Calabarzon, Metro Manila and the Bicol Region.

Within Region I, Ilocos Norte’s 1st District posted a P12.91-billion allocation for 2025, the highest in the region and among the largest nationwide for that year.

The documents provided itemized breakdowns distinguishing between “allocable” and “outside allocable” funds, as well as projects initiated by the DPWH or Congress.

Leviste said the files were part of roughly P3.5 trillion in DPWH capital outlays from 2023 to 2026 and he challenged Malacañang and critics to verify them directly with the DPWH, the Independent Commission for Infrastructure, and the Office of the Ombudsman.

“Secretary Vince and others in DPWH, and others in Congress, will confirm the authenticity of the files that I’ve uploaded,” Leviste said.

He said he submitted copies to the ICI on 18 and 19 November and to the Ombudsman on 26 November, adding that both offices told him they had not previously seen the documents.

Leviste said the data raised transparency questions on how district allocations were computed, citing a budget allocation system he said former DPWH undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral described as the Baseline Balanced Managed parametric formula, used in preparing the National Expenditure Program.

Malacañang has dismissed allegations tied to the files as hearsay absent DPWH authentication.

As of Friday, the DPWH had not publicly confirmed or denied the documents’ authenticity, while the ICI and the Ombudsman had yet to comment on their contents.