Donate

KWEBA ni BAROK

Flood of Questions: Senator Marcos Demands Accountability for PHP132-B Bicol Flood Control Funds

Published by

Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

on

Flood of Questions: Senator Marcos Demands Accountability for PHP132-B Bicol Flood Control Funds

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — November 1, 2024

IN THE Philippines, where floods swallow villages and typhoons are regular guests, one question haunts the minds of millions: where did the billions for flood control go? Senator Imee Marcos wants answers about the PHP132 billion supposedly spent on Bicol’s flood control projects since 2018. But as Bicolanos fight to stay afloat in another season of catastrophic floods, the senator’s demands shine a light on a bigger issue: why does this massive spending fail to protect vulnerable communities? Marcos’ call for transparency exposes what many have feared—political promises, hidden agendas, and a growing price paid in lives lost.

Flood Control and the Deep Wells of Corruption

Flood control projects, essential in a country vulnerable to typhoons and rising sea levels, seem to have become breeding grounds for corruption. The complexity of these projects – often requiring multiple stages, agencies, and contractors – provides fertile ground for graft. Flood control structures, buried underground or out of the public eye, are notoriously difficult to monitor, making it all too easy for funds to vanish or be misused without public notice. Politicians have long understood the potential of such projects as sources of patronage and graft, a reality made infamous by the “pork barrel” scandals and persistent abuse of unprogrammed budgets and allocation mechanisms.

Senator Marcos’ argument for disclosure is grounded in more than the immediate issue of misallocated funds; it strikes at the foundation of how infrastructure projects are overseen and how effectively the institutions established to monitor these projects actually function. The Freedom of Information Act of 2012, for instance, mandates transparency in government operations, yet enforcement remains spotty and inconsistent. The Department of Budget and Management’s DIME platform and the auditing powers of the Commission on Audit (COA) should, in theory, track fund disbursement and ensure accountability, but these tools have proven insufficient. Political pressures, resource limitations, and access barriers often prevent these mechanisms from fulfilling their intended role. In short, while infrastructure is essential, corruption and inefficiency seem inseparable from the process.

Demanding Answers:  Arguments for Accountability and Transparency

Marcos’ call for transparency and accountability carries considerable merit. The Philippine Constitution guarantees citizens’ right to information on matters of public concern, and transparency in government spending, especially of this scale, is a foundational ethical standard. As funds meant for disaster mitigation vanish, lives and livelihoods are imperiled. This demand for a transparent accounting isn’t only about financial prudence; it’s about ensuring that the lives of Filipino citizens, who are perpetually at risk, are prioritized over political patronage.

Furthermore, as Supreme Court precedents on transparency remind us, government agencies have an obligation to proactively disclose budget use and project statuses to the public. Marcos’ call also aligns with the public outcry in recent years for improved disaster resilience, highlighted in the wake of tragic flooding events. These demands underscore the ethical and legal standards governing public fund use, reflecting a broad public mandate for action.

The Complicated Reality:  Counter-Arguments and the Depth of the Issue

While Marcos’ call for transparency is clear, the road to full accountability is fraught with challenges. The House Committee on Appropriations has presented a conflicting narrative, claiming that funds allocated to Bicol were not nearly as high as Marcos suggests. Committee Chairman Elizaldy Co contends that Congress deliberately tempered flood control spending to prevent waste, arguing that these restrained strategies reflected sound fiscal policy, not neglect. Here, he suggests a rift within the government itself regarding what constitutes an “adequate” response.

Furthermore, the DPWH may not be solely responsible for the region’s flood control; other agencies like the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) also hold responsibilities in water and flood management. Thus, while Marcos points to the DPWH, it may only represent part of the complex web of agencies involved in these projects. The reality of project oversight, multiple jurisdictions, and layers of contracting add a logistical and bureaucratic dimension that makes simple blame hard to place.

The Case for Accountability:  Assessing the Evidence Against DPWH

Building a case against the DPWH – and potentially other agencies – for misuse or misallocation of funds would require a formidable investigative process. The Commission on Audit (COA) has previously flagged irregularities in infrastructure project implementation, and its reports could provide a basis for further scrutiny. Yet, without transparency and access to detailed project documents, auditors are hamstrung, and proving outright corruption, as opposed to mere inefficiency, may be an uphill battle.

Additionally, political will is paramount. The DPWH, with its vast budgetary allocations, enjoys significant influence, and many projects are supported by high-ranking political figures. Tackling alleged corruption within an agency that serves as a cash flow pipeline for numerous projects nationwide is a daunting political task, requiring both a commitment from leaders and a robust legal framework to ensure accountability. History reveals that, too often, cases against powerful departments fizzle out under pressure or are mired in procedural delays.

Recommendations for Senator Marcos, the DPWH, the Government, and the Filipino People

  1. For Senator Imee Marcos: Continue to press for transparency but frame the call as a nonpartisan issue, directly tied to the lives and well-being of Filipinos in flood-prone areas. She should push for an independent audit of the Bicol flood control projects, leveraging the FOI Act to secure access to detailed expenditure records.
  2. For the DPWH and Other Agencies: Improve public reporting mechanisms and collaborate with third-party auditors or NGOs to validate project progress and expenditures. Implement digital monitoring tools to publicly track infrastructure spending, enabling citizens to verify and engage in project oversight.
  3. For the Government: Strengthen oversight of disaster-related projects by creating a unified, inter-agency task force that reports directly to the President. The administration should mandate that the DBM’s DIME platform is fully utilized for real-time tracking of all infrastructure projects and consider enacting stricter regulations on flood control project bidding processes.
  4. For the Filipino People: Demand transparency through continued civic engagement and pressure local and national officials to commit to ethical governance. Mobilize through civil society organizations and social media to call for accountability and challenge the status quo of complacency regarding public fund misuse.

As another typhoon season looms, the clamor for accountability in flood control efforts grows deafening. Filipinos, once resigned to their fate, now rise with Senator Imee Marcos, demanding answers for the vanishing funds meant to shield them from nature’s wrath. The pivotal question remains: will this be the catalyst for a new era of responsible governance, or will it succumb to the same old political games? The future is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the people’s resilience is a force that cannot be ignored.

Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

Leave a comment

Hello,

I’m Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

Let’s connect

Join the fun!

Stay updated with our latest tutorials and ideas by joining our newsletter.

Recent posts