📷: Kilusang Mayo Uno | FB
ACT Teachers Representative and Deputy Minority Leader Antonio Tinio exposed massive irregularities in the 2025 General Appropriations Act during the DPWH congressional budget briefing revealing nearly ₱1 billion worth of duplicate flood control projects that prioritize political patronage over scientific planning.
During the hearing, Tinio presented glaring examples of budget manipulation, including a flood control structure in Barangay Mangorokoro, Ajuy, Iloilo that appears three times in the GAA 2025 with different amounts—₱79 million under the Flood Management Program and two separate ₱150 million entries under Sustainable Infrastructure Projects Alleviating Gaps (SIPAG), totaling ₱379 million for a single project.
“Our initial review found similar double entries totaling ₱939 million – almost ₱1 billion. This is not a trivial matter,” Tinio stated during the hearing.
DPWH Secretary Dizon said that there is a “rule” that the projects were divided into multiple phases and segments in order for it not to exceed the P150-million limit for district-level projects. If it went above P150 million, the project will be handled by the regional office
The lawmaker also highlighted how the Flood Management Program budget ballooned from ₱226 billion in the National Expenditure Program to ₱240 billion in the final GAA—an increase of ₱13.89 billion through congressional insertions. “Ang flood management, 106 pages. Pero sa GAA, naging 145 pages. So that’s another way of looking at kung gaano karami yung mga insertions,” Tinio added.
In a crucial exchange with DPWH Secretary Dizon, Tinio asked whether flood control allocations are based on scientific studies or river basin master plans. The Secretary’s candid admission was telling: “Tingin ko po ang diretsyong sagot ay hindi” (I think the direct answer is no).
“So talagang hindi, for the most part, hindi nakabatay sa mga scientific and technical studies for flood management, especially along the river basins,” Tinio emphasized, exposing the unscientific basis of billions in flood control spending.
The Deputy Minority Leader pointed out the devastating consequences of this approach: “Kaya po ang nangyayari, patsi-patse. Ang mga proyekto, 150 meters dito, 300 meters doon, hindi necessarily connected ang mga ito. Kaya ineffective in flood management” (What happens is piecemeal projects—150 meters here, 300 meters there, not necessarily connected, making them ineffective in flood management).
Tinio directly challenged the political basis of these allocations, stating that “instead of scientific or technical considerations based on actual community needs, the actual basis is political—we can call it patronage, equal division on a political basis. Dapat ang mga distrito may hating kapatid” (Each district must have its share).
The ACT Teachers representative secured a commitment from DPWH Secretary Dizon to reform the system for the 2026 budget, proposing that “for 2026, no flood management programs along major river basins unless it is part of a master plan with scientific basis.”
“This exposes the rotten system of pork barrel politics that wastes billions of pesos while communities continue to suffer from floods. We demand genuine flood management based on science, not political accommodation,” Tinio concluded.#
