Philippines Senate LIVE : Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Investigates Flood Control Projects | Manila

TLDR;

This video features a discussion on flood control projects, environmental compliance, and fund allocation, highlighting issues such as ghost projects, non-compliance with environmental regulations, and the process of accessing unprogrammed funds. Key points include:

Discovery of ghost projects and non-compliance in flood control initiatives.
Scrutiny of environmental compliance certificates (ECC) and project approvals in Cebu.
Examination of the process for accessing and utilizing unprogrammed funds for flood control.
Concerns over transparency and potential misuse of funds in flood control projects.

Flood Control Project Discrepancies and Budget Allocations [0:00]

The committee discusses discrepancies in flood control projects, noting an increase in project costs and a significant percentage of funds being allocated to flood control from unprogrammed funds. There's a discussion about a reported 114% increase, later corrected to 23%, in project costs from 2023 to 2025. The discussion also touches on the need for the government to recover misappropriated funds and address substandard work.

DPWH Project Inspections and Findings [2:07]

The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) reported that out of 9,855 completed projects, 489 were deemed nonexistent or could not be located. This report is based on inspections from 2022, focusing on projects reported as completed by the former secretary. The committee emphasizes the need for a detailed report to establish a basis for further action, including a list of implementing offices.

Environmental Compliance in Cebu and the Monteraza Project [4:25]

The discussion shifts to environmental compliance issues in Region 7, particularly concerning "The Rice" at Monteraza in Cebu City. Senator Turisa questions the issuance of an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the project, highlighting concerns about development on land exceeding 18° slope, which is supposedly restricted under Presidential Decree 1998. Deputy Executive Director Salak explains that the Monteraza project started in 2006, received an ECC in 2007, and later requested an amendment in 2022 to include "The Rice" project, leading to another ECC in 2024.

Monteraza Project Approvals and Revisions [7:51]

Director Abrera identifies Alan Arangues as the signatory for the 2007 ECC and herself for the 2024 amended ECC. Originally, the Monteraza development consisted of individual houses on 140 hectares, a horizontal development approved in 2007 with an environmental impact assessment. The 2022 application included vertical development, with revisions made due to LGU disapproval of the vertical design.

Revised ECC and Flood Damage in Monteraza [10:56]

Despite revisions to follow the terrain, the development's multi-level structures are perceived as vertical, causing concern among Cebu residents. The committee questions how the revised ECC was granted in 2024, considering the damage caused by the development, even at only 15% completion. Abrera explains that the design included water detention facilities based on average rainfall, but Deputy Executive Director Salac notes that two of the ten ponds collapsed.

ECC Compliance and Monitoring [14:43]

The revised ECC granted in 2024 lacked a complete engineering geohazard assessment. Despite going through public scoping, hearings, and technical reviews, the assessment was insufficient. The detention ponds were designed for normal rainfall, but the actual rainfall exceeded this capacity, leading to a lack of contingency plans during heavy rainfall. The developer's belief that the ECC was a permit rather than a compliance requirement is also discussed.

Post-Disaster Investigation and Compliance Issues [18:39]

Post the 2024 ECC revision, there were noted non-compliance issues, such as the absence of a pollution control officer. While monitoring was conducted from 2021 to 2025, the discharge permit was inconsistent due to deficient information. The committee questions whether the flood control aspects of the project were monitored, especially after the cutting of 734 trees. Despite warnings from stakeholders about the design's dangers, the design was approved with harvesting tanks meant to collect 60-70% of rainwater, but these projections did not materialize.

Construction Phase and Flood Control Components [22:16]

Even during the construction phase, flood control components were necessary due to the bare construction site and the removal of trees. The committee suggests that the design may be fatally flawed, even at the 15% completion stage. The DNR's role is emphasized as an environmental and natural resources department, responsible for the sustainability of ecosystems and the safety of communities.

Accessing Unprogrammed Funds for Flood Control [24:15]

The discussion shifts to the process of accessing unprogrammed funds for flood control. Mr. Bernardo explains that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) advises the DPWH on the availability of unprogrammed funds, prompting the DPWH to submit project requests. However, the process seems to be more of a verbal advice rather than a formal written communication.

DBM's Role and DPWH Project Submissions [26:52]

The DBM verbally advises the DPWH on the amount of available unprogrammed funds, after which the DPWH prepares a list of projects for submission. The committee notes that in 2023, 41% of DPWH's submissions were for flood control, increasing to 64% in 2024, raising questions about the decision-making process for project submissions. Usek Cabral is identified as the one who prepared the list for the Secretary's signature.

Unprogrammed Funds and Project Approvals [29:53]

The committee discusses a special allotment release order for fiscal year 2024, amounting to ₱51.341 billion, with ₱30.8 billion allocated to flood control. The sources of these funds are questioned, as they should come from excess non-tax revenue, accompanying revenue measures, or approved loans. The committee aims to eliminate unnecessary items under the unprogrammed fund in the next year's budget.

Flood Control Budget and Project Discretion [34:37]

The committee notes that in 2020, there was already ₱250 billion allocated for flood control, with an additional ₱85 billion from unprogrammed funds, totaling ₱330 billion. The increase in flood control projects from 41% in 2023 to 64% in 2024 suggests a deliberate attempt to increase flood control spending, possibly due to higher commissions. The discretionary power of the DBM in releasing unprogrammed funds based on DPWH submissions is also questioned.

DOJ's Investigation and Case Timelines [38:57]

The committee seeks an update from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on cases filed and their timelines, following Secretary Recto's statement about holding people accountable by the end of the month. Attorney Bernardez explains that cases involving DPWH officials from Bulacan District 1 are under preliminary investigation, with hearings scheduled. Additional cases are undergoing evaluation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and DOJ prosecutors, with potential filings by the middle of next week.

Case Filing Procedures and Ombudsman Involvement [42:19]

Cases involving officials with salary grade 27 and above will be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman. The DOJ will be deputized to conduct preliminary investigations, but the Ombudsman will have the final authority to approve the filing of cases in the Sandiganbayan. The committee expresses concern about the timeline for these cases, aiming to complete the process before the Christmas season.

ICI Cases and DOJ Coordination [45:40]

The committee inquires about cases filed by the Inter-Agency Council for Integrity (ICI) and their progress. Some ICI cases are undergoing field investigation by the Ombudsman, with some ready for resolution. The DOJ coordinates with the ICI to avoid duplication of efforts, ensuring that cases are properly referred and copies are furnished.

River Basin Control Office and Flood Control Master Plans [47:20]

The committee questions the role and effectiveness of the River Basin Control Office (RBCO) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Despite its mandate to create master plans for sustainable river management and integrate flood control plans, there is a perceived lack of coordination between the RBCO and DPWH. The committee suggests that the failure to integrate the 18 river basins into flood control planning contributes to the ineffectiveness of flood control projects.

DPWH's Information Management Systems [50:59]

The committee examines the DPWH's information management systems, including the Information Management System (IMS), Project Contract Management Application (PCMA), and Multi-Year Projects System (MYPS). Discrepancies in project coordinates between the PCMA and MYPS are highlighted, with variances ranging from 67 to 700 meters. The committee expresses concern that reliance on inaccurate data from MYPS could mislead investigations into ghost projects.

Senate Blue Ribbon Rules and Corruption Allegations [55:05]

The committee refers to Senate Blue Ribbon rules, specifically Article 5 Section 3, which allows for the referral of matters with evidence of malfeasance to the Ombudsman, DOJ, or other appropriate agencies. The committee asserts that the evidence of corruption is overwhelming and should be referred for prosecution. A video recording from former Congressman Saldiko is mentioned, containing allegations that further highlight the depth of the problem.

Prosecution Efforts and Presidential Statements [59:16]

The committee questions the prosecutor general about the prosecution efforts, particularly regarding the President's statement about imminent arrests. The prosecutor general clarifies that investigations are ongoing, focusing on DPWH officials from Bulacan District 1, but cannot confirm the President's statement or provide a timeline for arrests. The committee emphasizes that the President's statements are likely based on advice from the DOJ, but the prosecutor general cannot assume this without personal knowledge.

Legacy Advocate and Flood Control Inspections [1:03:36]

The committee questions Mr. Alex Abelido, representing Legacy, about a video where he claimed no ghost projects or luxury vehicles. Abelido denies making the video, suggesting it was manipulated. The committee urges DPWH to expedite inspections, especially for buildings, to ensure safety during earthquakes.

Cebu Mountain Development and DNR Findings [1:07:10]

The committee revisits the issue of mountain development in Cebu, questioning how houses can be built in mountainous areas despite regulations. Deputy ED Salak shares findings from a DNR team, including illegal tree cutting, violations of ECC conditions, and deficiencies in the engineering geohazard assessment. The DNR has issued a notice of violations and a stoppage order, requiring the developer to repair damages and replace the cut trees with 73,400 native trees.

ECC Conditions and Land Development in Cebu [1:11:16]

The committee emphasizes that an ECC is not a permit but a set of conditions that must be complied with. The developer must monitor and comply with the ECC, including having a pollution control officer. The committee notes that Presidential Decree 1998 exempts Cebu and Benguet, allowing lands with more than 18% slope to be categorized as alienable and disposable, contributing to development in highland areas.

Sierra Madre Development and Mining Concerns [1:14:32]

The committee raises concerns about development in the Sierra Madre, including mining and logging activities. A mining company is reportedly operating in a "gray area" not covered by protected area laws. The committee requests a report from the DNR on the situation, emphasizing the need to protect the Sierra Madre and shift from reactive to proactive measures.

Ghost Projects and Inspection Progress [1:17:16]

The committee follows up on the inspection of ghost projects, noting that the initial figure of 421 was a combined effort of AFP, PNP, and DepEd. The number was later revised to 420 due to double entries. The committee notes that Bulacan First District is the top notcher with 31 ghost projects. The committee seeks a progress report on the inspection of flood control projects, with a total appropriation of ₱1.1 trillion.

Updated Ghost Project Figures and Cost Projections [1:19:48]

As of November 12, 10,075 projects have been validated, with 472 identified as ghost projects, an increase of 52 from the October figure. The committee requests the total cost of these ghost projects, as it can be used by the DOJ for restitution. The committee projects the potential increase in ghost projects based on the rate of increase and the total number of projects to be inspected.

Calculating Losses and Projecting Future Findings [1:23:25]

The committee aims to project the total amount lost due to ghost projects, emphasizing that these funds went directly into private pockets rather than actual flood control projects. Based on the initial 420 ghost projects costing ₱29.7 billion, the committee attempts to calculate the rate of increase and project future findings. The committee requests a submission with the relevant figures for further analysis.

Clarifications on Project Figures and Reporting [1:25:37]

The committee clarifies that the figure of 421 ghost projects was based on an old report, and the latest report from DepEd, dated September 30, indicates that out of 6,022 projects inspected, some were nonexistent or could not be located. The committee requests that a report be submitted with a list of implementing offices to provide a basis for further investigation.

Monteraza Project and ECC Issuance [1:27:52]

The committee continues questioning the issuance of the ECC for the Monteraza project in Cebu, particularly focusing on who was responsible for granting the ECC despite concerns about the development's impact. Deputy Executive Director Salak explains that the project started in 2006 and received an ECC in 2007, with an amendment requested in 2022 to include "The Rice" project, leading to another ECC in 2024.

Officials Responsible for ECC Approvals [1:30:43]

The committee identifies Alan Arangues as the official who signed the 2007 ECC and Director Abrera as the one who issued the amended ECC in 2024. The committee seeks to understand the original specifications of the Monteraza development when the ECC was first granted in 2007.

Original Specs of Monteraza Development [1:32:02]

Based on records, the original Monteraza development in 2007 consisted of lots for sale for individual houses on 140 hectares, a horizontal development with an environmental impact assessment. In 2022, the developers applied for revisions to include vertical development, but the LGU did not approve the vertical design.

Revised Design and Environmental Damage [1:33:38]

The revised design followed the terrain, with multi-level houses instead of high-rise buildings. Despite only 15% of the revised design being completed, it has already caused significant environmental damage. The committee questions how the revised ECC was granted in 2024, considering that the design does not truly follow the terrain and has exacerbated environmental damage.

Water Catchment Facilities and Rainfall Capacity [1:35:44]

The committee notes that the development has several floors, despite claims of following the terrain, and that the water catchment facility at the base of the development has failed. The design was based on an average rainfall of 136 mm, with a detention capacity of 15,000 cubic meters. However, the actual rainfall during Typhoon Tino was 183 mm, exceeding the detention capacity.

ECC Violations and Contingency Plans [1:38:39]

The revised ECC granted in 2024 lacked a complete engineering geohazard assessment. The detention ponds were designed for normal rainfall, but the actual rainfall exceeded this capacity, leading to a lack of contingency plans during heavy rainfall. The developer's violation was the lack of a contingency plan during emergencies and heavy rainfall, causing compacted materials to give way and flow into waterways.

ECC as Compliance and Monitoring [1:42:10]

The committee emphasizes that an ECC is not a permit but a compliance requirement. The developer must monitor and comply with the ECC, including having a pollution control officer. The committee questions whether the flood control aspects of the project were monitored, especially after the cutting of 734 trees. Despite warnings from stakeholders about the design's dangers, the design was approved with harvesting tanks meant to collect 60-70% of rainwater, but these projections did not materialize.

Construction Phase and Flood Control Components [1:46:11]

Accessing Unprogrammed Funds for Flood Control [1:47:45]

DBM's Role and DPWH Project Submissions [1:50:22]

Unprogrammed Funds and Project Approvals [1:53:23]

Flood Control Budget and Project Discretion [1:58:07]

DOJ's Investigation and Case Timelines [2:02:27]

Case Filing Procedures and Ombudsman Involvement [2:05:49]

ICI Cases and DOJ Coordination [2:09:11]

Watch the Video

Date: 12/15/2025 Source: www.youtube.com