In a recent hearing at the House Blue Ribbon Committee, Representative Rodante Marcoleta delivered a scathing critique of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), focusing on what he described as mismanagement, inefficiencies, and unjust allocation of funds under Secretary Don’s leadership. Although Secretary Don was appointed only a month ago, Marcoleta raised concerns over several systemic issues that he claimed have persisted for decades.

Alleged “Fat” in the Budget and Unjust Allocations

Marcoleta pointed to the so-called “fat” in the DPWH budget as a significant problem, arguing that the current allocation of funds is neither transparent nor equitable. He highlighted the proposed expenditure program (PEP) for 2026, which had been revised downward from PHP 880 billion to PHP 625.7 billion. While certain reductions were attributed to cuts in locally funded flood control projects, Marcoleta asserted that much of the budgetary “fat” remains unaddressed.

He cited examples of discrepancies in district allocations, noting that while some districts received as much as PHP 11 billion, others only received around PHP 1 billion. In comparison, party-list representatives only have access to PHP 150 million nationwide, despite their constituencies spanning the entire country. Marcoleta questioned the logic behind this wide disparity, stressing the need for justification when allocating finite national resources.

“Unless and until we are able to justify why one small district receives 11 billion while another gets only 3 billion, the fat remains in the system,” he said. He further emphasized that budgetary transparency and equity must begin not only with the numbers but also with the process by which projects are included in the National Expenditure Program (NEP).

Asset Preservation Program Under Scrutiny

Another area of concern raised by Marcoleta was the DPWH Asset Preservation Program. He noted a pattern of increasing allocations from 2022 to 2025—PHP 117 billion in 2022, PHP 124 billion in 2023, PHP 139 billion in 2024, and PHP 153 billion in 2025—before a sudden drop to PHP 105 billion in 2026, later revised to PHP 115 billion. Marcoleta expressed doubts about whether this reduction signals a neglect of maintenance for roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure, especially given the deterioration observed in several high-priority structures.

He specifically criticized the use of substandard materials, citing the example of Rocknet imported from China, which is cheaper but less durable. This, he argued, contributes to structural failures, such as landslides, road collapses, and bridge incidents, including the San Juanico Bridge. Marcoleta urged that asset preservation programs should be fully funded and correctly implemented to prevent further infrastructure degradation.

Coordination and Monitoring Failures

Marcoleta also highlighted discrepancies in project coordination, particularly in relation to submitted geographic coordinates for infrastructure projects. Using a USB provided by the President during his initial investigation, he found that project coordinates often differed by hundreds of meters, which he attributed to the lack of real-time monitoring. Encoders were reportedly submitting updates only at the end of each month, creating gaps in accountability and making it easier to manipulate project data.

To address this, Marcoleta suggested the adoption of satellite technology through the Philippine Science Agency (PSA), even if it required additional funding. He argued that real-time monitoring, even if conducted once or twice a month, could significantly improve transparency and prevent mismanagement or fraudulent claims regarding project completion.

Engineering Districts and Corruption Risks

During the hearing, Marcoleta touched upon the role of engineering districts, noting that corruption often begins at this level due to the influence of local congressmen over district engineer appointments. He proposed the possibility of streamlining or removing engineering districts to reduce opportunities for graft. He also encouraged leveraging external assistance from institutions such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the World Bank for auditing and engineering support.

Examples of Budget Discrepancies

To illustrate the problem, Marcoleta referenced the case of Zaldico, a district that reportedly received PHP 35 billion over four years, raising questions about justification and transparency. He stressed that large allocations must be accounted for, with clear criteria and monitoring mechanisms to ensure funds are effectively used for public benefit.

Secretary Don’s Response

In response, Secretary Don acknowledged his short tenure and expressed willingness to address the identified problems. He assured lawmakers that asset preservation allocations were submitted and approved by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and he welcomed technical assistance from relevant agencies and committees. Don emphasized that cleaning up the department was a direct directive from the President, signaling alignment with Marcoleta’s call for reforms.

Need for Systemic Reform

Marcoleta repeatedly stressed that these issues are not new but have persisted for decades. He insisted that reforming both the budgetary process and project implementation is critical to prevent ongoing inefficiencies and to safeguard national assets. He also emphasized the need for equity in fund distribution, urging a systematic review of district allocations to remove arbitrary disparities and ensure resources are allocated according to need rather than influence.

Technological Solutions for Transparency

Marcoleta’s recommendations highlight the potential for technology to improve governance. By integrating satellite monitoring and more precise project tracking, the DPWH could reduce mismanagement and ensure that allocations for asset preservation, flood control, and other critical infrastructure programs are executed efficiently.

He also suggested collaboration with external auditing and engineering institutions to provide independent verification and oversight, reinforcing accountability across departments and projects.

Conclusion

The Blue Ribbon hearing underscores the challenges faced by the DPWH, including budgetary inefficiencies, inequitable fund distribution, inadequate asset preservation, and gaps in monitoring and accountability. Representative Marcoleta’s interventions call for urgent reforms, emphasizing the need to remove “fat” from the budget, address disparities in district allocations, and strengthen oversight mechanisms through technology and external assistance.

Secretary Don’s expressed willingness to cooperate with lawmakers, combined with recommendations for satellite-based monitoring and potential restructuring of engineering districts, indicates a path forward for more transparent and effective management of public infrastructure. However, significant challenges remain, and the extent to which these recommendations are implemented will determine whether the DPWH can truly modernize and fulfill its mandate to serve the public efficiently.