In a heated Senate session in Manila, Filipino lawmakers have flagged what they describe as glaring irregularities in the proposed 2026 budget for the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). The accusations center on duplicated funding allocations for infrastructure projects, raising concerns about transparency and accountability in one of the country’s largest budgetary allocations. As the debate unfolds, senators are pushing for answers, with some even suggesting the budget be returned to the executive branch for a complete overhaul.
Duplication Sparks Suspicion
During the second day of discussions with the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) on the National Expenditure Program (NEP) for 2026, Senator Erwin Tulfo ignited the controversy by pointing out identical funding amounts for flood control projects in Antique and Iloilo. Each project was allocated exactly 149,750,000 Philippine Pesos (~US$2.67 million), a precision that Tulfo suggested could indicate either a serious oversight or deliberate manipulation. He questioned why costs did not vary based on terrain, materials, or project scope, pressing the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for an explanation.
DBM chief Amenah Pangandaman responded by clarifying that the detailed proposals originated from the DPWH itself, emphasizing that her department’s role is limited to setting the overall budget level—approximately 875 billion Philippine Pesos (~US$15.6 billion) for the year—without delving into specific line items. She noted that the DPWH, with its technical expertise, is responsible for justifying individual project costs. This explanation, however, did little to assuage Tulfo’s concerns, who later hinted at reports of budget insertions being made at the NEP stage to avoid scrutiny from both houses of Congress. 
A Broader Pattern of Red Flags
The issue of duplicated funding was not isolated to Antique and Iloilo. Senator Panfilo Lacson expanded the scope of concern, revealing that across Metro Manila to Central Luzon, at least 500 projects in the DPWH budget shared suspiciously similar funding amounts, ranging from 75 million to 150 million Philippine Pesos (~US$1.34 million to US$2.67 million) each. Lacson labeled this a blatant red flag and proposed an executive session to discuss the way forward, including the potential deletion of these identically costed items. He highlighted that, upon his review, at least 373 projects were budgeted at exactly 100 million Philippine Pesos (~US$1.78 million), further fueling suspicions of systemic irregularities.
Lacson’s call for an executive session underscored a broader frustration among senators about the lack of clear direction from the national government on how to address these budgetary anomalies. His suggestion to amend or remove questionable items reflected a willingness to act decisively, provided there is guidance from the executive branch on the intended priorities for public works spending.
Calls to Reject the Budget
Taking a more hardline stance, Senator Bam Aquino argued that the DPWH’s proposed budget should be outright rejected and sent back to the executive branch for revision. Aquino pointed to the ongoing investigations into the projects and the numerous red flags already identified, insisting that accepting the budget in its current form would be irresponsible. He urged for a revised submission within four months, free of what he termed “ghost projects” and allocations for flood control in areas with no history of flooding.
Aquino acknowledged that his proposal deviates from standard procedure but argued that the scale of the issues warranted an exception. Echoing a sentiment attributed to the President, he called for a budget that lawmakers could take pride in, without the embarrassment of questionable allocations. However, Pangandaman countered that such a move would not align with constitutional or procedural rules, reiterating that the executive proposes the budget while the legislative branch holds the power to amend it.
Six Major Concerns in the 2026 Budget
Beyond the issue of duplicated funding, Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, who chairs the Senate panel on finance, outlined six additional red flags in the 2026 NEP. These include projects lacking proper identification numbers, budgets split into phases with suspiciously similar costs, and the use of vague terms like “with packages” for projects in the same area. Gatchalian also noted the recurrence of projects from the 2025 General Appropriations Act in the 2026 proposal, alongside inconsistent labeling and the use of round-numbered amounts that further raised eyebrows among lawmakers.
These findings paint a troubling picture of the budget preparation process, suggesting either a lack of rigorous oversight or potential attempts to obscure questionable allocations. The combination of duplicated items, inconsistent documentation, and recycled projects has intensified calls for accountability, with senators determined to ensure that taxpayer money is allocated transparently and effectively.
Implications for Governance and Public Trust
The controversy over the DPWH budget comes at a critical time for the Philippines, where infrastructure development is a cornerstone of national policy aimed at addressing longstanding issues like flooding, urban congestion, and rural connectivity. The DPWH, tasked with implementing these projects, manages one of the largest shares of the national budget, making any hint of mismanagement or opacity a matter of significant public concern. With hundreds of projects potentially affected by these budgetary irregularities, the stakes are high for both the government and the Filipino public, who rely on these initiatives for improved quality of life.
The senators’ scrutiny also reflects broader tensions between the legislative and executive branches over fiscal responsibility. While the DBM maintains that its role is limited to setting budgetary ceilings, lawmakers argue that such a hands-off approach risks enabling errors or intentional manipulations at the agency level. This clash of perspectives raises fundamental questions about how budget oversight should be structured to prevent similar issues in the future.
Regional Context and Comparative Challenges
The Philippines is not alone in grappling with budgetary transparency issues within Southeast Asia. Neighboring countries like Thailand and Indonesia have faced similar criticisms over public works spending, often linked to allegations of corruption or political favoritism. In Thailand, for instance, recent reports from local outlets have highlighted concerns over inflated costs for infrastructure projects in the southern provinces, while in Indonesia, the allocation of funds for regional development has sparked debates over equitable distribution. These parallels suggest that the challenges faced by the DPWH are part of a regional struggle to balance ambitious development goals with the need for rigorous financial oversight.
For the Philippines, however, the current controversy carries unique domestic implications. With infrastructure flagged as a priority under successive administrations, any perception of waste or mismanagement could erode public confidence in the government’s ability to deliver on its promises. This is particularly significant in a country where natural disasters like typhoons necessitate robust and reliable flood control measures—projects now under scrutiny for their questionable funding allocations.
Looking Ahead: Accountability or Stalemate?
As the Senate continues its review of the 2026 NEP, the path forward remains uncertain. The push for an executive session by Senator Lacson could provide a forum for more candid discussions between lawmakers and government agencies, potentially leading to targeted amendments. However, Senator Aquino’s call to reject the budget outright signals a deeper frustration that may not be easily resolved through incremental changes. The DBM’s insistence on adhering to constitutional processes further complicates the situation, potentially setting the stage for a protracted standoff between the branches of government.
At the heart of this debate is a fundamental question of trust—both in the institutions tasked with managing public funds and in the processes designed to ensure their proper use. For Filipino citizens, the outcome of this budgetary scrutiny will likely serve as a litmus test for the government’s commitment to transparency. As the investigation deepens, the pressure is on the DPWH and the executive branch to provide clear, verifiable justifications for every peso allocated in the proposed budget.
With months still available before the final budget is approved, there is an opportunity to address these concerns and deliver a fiscal plan that prioritizes genuine public needs over suspected irregularities. Whether this opportunity will be seized, or whether the red flags in the DPWH budget will remain unresolved, is a question that looms large over Manila’s political landscape.
