SUMMARY OF SENATE HEARING ON 2026 DPWH BUDGET

 September 2025
 Senate Finance Committee hearing on the 2026 National Expenditure Program (NEP)
 Topic: Questionable projects in the DPWH flood control budget and the lack of vetting by the DBM

 HOW DO PROJECTS ENTER THE NEP?

Question from Sen. Win Gatchalian (Finance Committee Chair):

“How do DPWH flood control projects pass the NEP?”

DBM’s response:

DPWH encodes the project in an online system.

They have a form/checklist to submit (BP202).

DBM does not vet individual project details like location, cost accuracy, or duplication.

There is some vetting for formatting, duplication , and required attachments , but the feasibility study or detailed design is not reviewed .

RED FLAGS RAISED IN THE SENATE

Senators, led by Sen. Gatchalian and supported by Sen. Bam Aquino, Sen. Kiko Pangilinan, Sen. Bato Dela Rosa , and others, released 6 major red flags they saw in the proposed 2026 budget:

1. No Station Numbers

It is not clear exactly where the project will be built. For example: “Construction of breakwater – Quezon” but there is no detail on which barangay or kilometer.

2. Duplicate Projects

The project name, location, description, and cost are the same. For example:

“Rehabilitation of DS Bueno Bridge” twice with the same fund.

3. Divided Into “Phases” or “Packages”

Same project, divided into multiple parts with the same cost .
➤ Possible way to inflate the budget.

4. Rounded Figures

There are many projects that are exactly ₱100M, ₱50M, ₱75M, etc.
➤ It is unbelievable if there is a detailed engineering study , because naturally there are cents or not exact amounts.

5. Code Names or Coded Entries

Some entries have code names , while others do not.
➤ Lacks consistency and transparency.

6. Reappearance of 2025 Projects

A project that was already funded in 2025 , reappears in 2026.
➤ Example: Construction of flood mitigation structure – Agoo River , same entry, same amount.

STRONG WARNING FROM SENATORS

Sen. Gatchalian:

“You DBM, you release a budget but there is no due diligence? You don’t even check if there is a feasibility study? You are just like paper passersby.”

Sen. Tulfo:

“How can we ensure that there is no pork barrel here? It’s like we’re going back to the Napoles era. This is worse — we’re talking about billions.”

Sen. Bam Aquino:

“Let’s make an exception this year. Let’s return the entire DPWH budget to the Executive. Let them come back with a real flood control budget without red flags.”

SENATORS’ POINTS

Critical Issue

Lack of vetting
DBM does not examine the integrity of the project, even though they are the ones submitting the NEP to the President

Shovel-readiness
There should be a feasibility study, but it’s not being checked if there is one.

Duplications & Phasing
Clear way to duplicate funds

Budget Inflation
Round numbers = possible overpricing

Pork barrel pattern
Repeating the modus operandi of the “pork barrel scam”

Weak accountability
Blame DPWH, but DBM also has a role in passing the budget

RECOMMENDATION

 Return the entire DPWH budget to the Executive.

Fix the red flags

Show the real project with the correct plan, costing, and location

 Have a stricter vetting process in the DBM

A “checklist” is not enough

There should be an audit trail of who entered duplicate or ghost projects.

 QUOTE OF THE DAY:

“The unfortunate one here is the President — it looks like he is being fooled by his own agency. The even more unfortunate one is the people.” – Sen. Raffy Tulfo