Senators Question DPWH Budget Formula in Heated Hearing

The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) found itself in the hot seat this week as senators scrutinized the formula it uses to distribute billions in infrastructure funds across the country. Lawmakers raised pressing questions on transparency, fairness, and accountability, pointing to stark disparities that could undermine balanced development nationwide.

Scrutiny Over Billions in Public Funds

The DPWH is among the largest recipients of the national budget every year, responsible for building and maintaining roads, bridges, flood-control structures, and other vital infrastructure. For 2026, the agency is seeking hundreds of billions of pesos. But as budget hearings commenced, senators zeroed in on one critical question: how exactly are these massive funds allocated across regions, provinces, and districts?

Several lawmakers noted puzzling variations in allocations. Some regions enjoyed significant budget increases, while others—despite urgent needs for disaster resilience, rural roads, and connectivity—were given stagnant or reduced funds.

Senator Grace Santos, who hails from Mindanao, expressed sharp concern:

“We are repeatedly told that a technical formula guides this process. Yet when we examine the numbers, the logic seems absent. Communities that are highly vulnerable to floods and disasters receive less, while others with fewer urgent needs secure larger shares. This is difficult to accept.”

Suspicions of Political Favoritism

The hearing also brought forward renewed allegations that politics, not purely technical criteria, influence DPWH allocations. Critics argued that certain administration-aligned provinces appear to benefit disproportionately, raising concerns about whether infrastructure spending is being used as a tool of political reward.

Representative Miguel de la Cruz of Bicol highlighted glaring disparities:

“One Luzon district received nearly three times more than a comparable area in Visayas. Population and development needs are nearly identical. The only difference, it seems, is political alignment.”

DPWH Secretary Jaime Ramirez defended the agency, stating that allocations are guided by a formula considering population size, land area, existing road length, and economic activity. He acknowledged that adjustments may be made for calamity response and national priorities but denied any political interference.

“Our mandate is technical and developmental, not political. We are prepared to submit the complete methodology for Congress to review,” Ramirez told senators.

Calls for Greater Transparency

Transparency became the dominant theme of the discussion. Lawmakers and civil society groups demanded that the DPWH publish its allocation methodology for public scrutiny. They argued that without clear disclosure, suspicions of bias, corruption, or inefficiency will persist.

Senator Santos stressed:

“The people deserve to know how their taxes are being spent. If this formula is truly objective, then it should withstand public review.”

Advocates for transparency pointed out that infrastructure projects are often delayed, over-budget, or poorly prioritized. Making the formula public, they said, would allow communities to demand accountability from both the DPWH and their local leaders.

The Problem of Unequal Development

The issue strikes at a deeper national problem: uneven infrastructure development. Metro Manila and major cities often receive high-profile road networks, bridges, and expressways. Meanwhile, many rural provinces—especially in Visayas and Mindanao—remain plagued by poor connectivity, weak flood protection, and crumbling roads.

The Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) has long warned that uneven infrastructure spending contributes to regional inequality. Without adequate infrastructure, poorer regions struggle to attract investments and remain vulnerable to natural disasters.

Economist Dr. Liza Velasco emphasized:

“Infrastructure is the backbone of inclusive growth. When allocations are skewed, we entrench inequality. Balanced infrastructure spending is essential if we want nationwide progress, not just growth in Metro Manila.”

Citizens’ Outcry

The debate quickly spilled onto social media, where citizens shared personal frustrations. Posts from remote provinces went viral, describing washed-out roads, unsafe bridges, and recurring floods. Many expressed anger at being left behind while urban centers enjoy continuous upgrades.

A resident from Eastern Samar posted:

“Every year, our town is cut off during the rainy season because roads vanish under water. Yet we keep hearing about new flyovers in Manila. Don’t we deserve the same safety and access?”

The post was shared thousands of times, echoing a common frustration across underfunded provinces.

Proposals for Reform

The controversy has spurred proposals for reforms to ensure fairer, more accountable infrastructure spending. Suggestions include:

Independent Oversight: Establishing a body to review the DPWH’s formula and monitor project implementation.

Participatory Budgeting: Giving local government units and community stakeholders a stronger role in deciding priorities.

Mandatory Disclosure: Passing legislation requiring all government agencies to publish allocation formulas and methodologies.

Senator Santos is drafting a bill mandating budget transparency across all departments.

“We must institutionalize fairness, so no future administration can manipulate funds for political convenience,” she said.

Secretary Ramirez, for his part, promised to submit a detailed breakdown of the DPWH formula to Congress within two weeks. He also vowed to expand consultations with local governments to ensure urgent needs are prioritized.

Beyond the Numbers: Infrastructure as Nation-Building

At its core, the debate over the DPWH budget is about more than formulas and percentages. It is about nation-building. Infrastructure determines whether students can reach schools, farmers can deliver produce, families can be safe from floods, and businesses can thrive.

Observers warn that without reform, inequitable distribution will deepen regional divides, fuel public resentment, and hinder national progress.

As Dr. Velasco put it:

“Nation-building is not about pouring more cement in already developed areas. It is about ensuring that every Filipino, wherever they live, has equal access to opportunity and safety. Every peso must be spent with that vision in mind.”

Conclusion

The Senate’s grilling of the DPWH has thrown a spotlight on one of the most consequential yet least understood aspects of governance: how billions in taxpayer money are divided across the country. The controversy has sparked calls for transparency, fairness, and reforms that could redefine the way infrastructure funds are allocated in the future.

Whether the DPWH’s formula proves to be fair and defensible—or a tool of political convenience—remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: Filipinos across all regions will be watching closely. For communities long deprived of roads, bridges, and flood protection, the outcome of this debate could mean the difference between continued neglect and long-overdue progress.

For now, the public demands answers—and the government can no longer afford to ignore them.