Senators find ‘red flags’ in DPWH 2026 budget
As if the recently unearthed anomalies surrounding the flood control projects of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) were not enough, senators on Tuesday questioned a long list of items in the agency’s proposed funding for next year.
On Day 2 of the Senate finance committee’s meeting with the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) on the 2026 National Expenditure Program (NEP), Sen. Erwin Tulfo called attention to “duplicating items” related to flood control projects.
The duplication, he said, may be due to either “a serious lapse in judgment or a deliberate maneuver.”
Projects in Antique and Iloilo provinces, for example, had exactly the same amount, P149,750,000 each—“similar to the last peso,” Tulfo said.
Directing his question at Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman, he asked: “Can you explain why there is duplication of amounts for flood control projects in Antique and Iloilo? Doesn’t the cost depend on terrain, materials, and scope of work?”
In reply, Pangandaman pointed to the DPWH as the source of the proposal and that it was already outside the mandate of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to check the agency’s projects one by one.
“The volume of the DPWH budget has 700 plus pages and the total line items is about 15,000. In the budget call, the special nature of the DPWH’s project proposal is already clear. It’s already written that the DPWH is responsible, given that they have the expertise and the people to check,” she said.
The DBM and DBCC’s job is only to “set the level” of the DPWH’s budget, the secretary said.
“Like for this year, roughly P875 billion. But the contents of it we don’t touch. It’s included in the budget call. Given that we don’t have the expertise or even engineers to check each and every project of the DPWH,” she said.
Insertions
Sen. Panfilo Lacson also cited at least P51.82 billion worth of “distinct” but vague insertions in the proposed DPWH budget.
These include 88 items with P150 million in funding each, for a total of P13.2 billion; 373 items with P100-million allocation each, for a total of P37.3 billion; and 11 items costing P120 million each, for a total of P1.32 billion.
In Metro Manila and Central Luzon alone, there are at least 500 items with similar amounts of P75 million, P100 million, P120 million and P150 million each, he said.
In all, there are at least 373 items in the DPWH budget costing P100 million each, he said.
The similarities in the amount and the absence of a clear “stationing’’ (details about the location) are a “blatant red flag” for ghost projects, he said.
Sen. Sherwin “Win” Gatchalian, chair of the Senate finance committee, also listed questionable items in the 2026 NEP, categorizing them as follows:
• DPWH projects with no station number;
• Projects “divided into phases” with similar amounts;
• Projects with the phrase “with packages” and found in the same area;
• Those whose costs have been rounded off.
• Projects that “reappeared” in the 2026 NEP from the 2025 General Appropriations Act or the law setting the national budget this year.
Gatchalian proposed an executive session “as a way forward, because with [the DBCC’s] guidance we are willing to amend and delete all these projects [with similar costs].”
“But we want to know what the direction of the national government is in terms of where we would bring this,” Lacson said.
Gatchalian asked the DBM to be “more detailed” in scrutinizing projects being inserted into the NEP.
“What’s happening is that the budget is being brought here, getting past your scrutiny. This is not a clerical error; they consciously inserted these in the [NEP],” Gatchalian said.
Negative list
For Senate President Francis Escudero, Malacañang should already draw up a “negative list” of infrastructure projects that cannot be funded under the 2026 budget.
These projects should be vetoed outright by President Marcos since they would only drain funds better allotted for more essential programs.
“Instead of waiting for questionable projects to slip into the budget and then expose them after the fact, we should be proactive. The Palace should make it clear from the start that these kinds of projects will not be entertained,” Escudero said in a statement.
“There will be an influx of useless projects if we don’t specify what projects should be prohibited. There should be zero budget for zero-benefit projects,” he added.
Escudero said the list should serve as a guide to both the executive and legislative branches and contain a stern warning that projects sponsored by lawmakers in violation of the list will be vetoed by the President.
Among the projects he suggested for inclusion in the negative list are “low-value but overpriced road devices,” such as reflective studs (“cat’s eyes”), slope protection nets and paint jobs.
The list should also include “vanity projects” like waiting sheds, swimming pools, signages, and other nonessential amenities, he said.
“Let’s redirect those funds to waste-to-energy plants, refuse-derived fuel facilities, and other measures that address garbage, clogged drainage systems, and reduced water-holding capacity in rivers and waterways.
Sen. Bam Aquino suggested that the Senate “refuse to accept” the draft DPWH budget and have it sent back to the executive branch.
But Pangandaman said Aquino’s proposal—to return only a specific part of the proposed national budget—is something “not in the Constitution or in the rules.”
“Otherwise, perhaps what can be returned is the budget as a whole,” she said.
