Beyond the White Sand: The Contentious Necessity of the Dolomite Beach Project

As the nation grappled with mounting challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic to relentless natural disasters, one specific public works project has become the focal point of fierce controversy and a serious congressional inquiry. The Manila Bay Dolomite Beach Project, with its hefty price tag of 389 million pesos, is being scrutinized not only for its enormous cost but also for its questionable necessity and the extremely sensitive timing of its implementation. This is not merely a debate about urban aesthetics; it is a profound interrogation of national priorities and transparency in public fund management.

A Disturbing Contrast: Between ‘Beautification’ and ‘Life-Saving’

The issue gained significant heat following massive storms that battered the Philippines, particularly in Cebu, where local flood control projects were widely denounced by the public and the provincial governor as either ineffective or non-operational. Amidst the rising public fury over allegedly corrupt and failed flood mitigation projects, the fact that an independent commission for infrastructure (ICI) was initially prioritizing investigations into issues in Davao, while the catastrophic aftermath of the floods in Cebu and Luzon remained, spurred deep public skepticism.

The juxtaposition of spending hundreds of millions of pesos on dumping dolomite sand to “nourish” a stretch of Manila’s coastline and the reported inadequacy and failure of infrastructure meant to protect citizens from natural calamities has generated a powerful wave of criticism. Lawmakers and the public are asking: Why was a “beautification” project given priority at a time when all resources should have been concentrated on containing the virus, aiding disaster victims, and fortifying essential infrastructure?

Controversial Timing and Questions of Funding Source

The investigation, scheduled for November 19 and led by the House Committee on Public Accounts, will zero in on establishing the necessity of the Dolomite Beach project. A core issue is its implementation in September 2020, during the height of the pandemic lockdown, when the country lacked basic medical supplies and vaccines were yet to be procured.

Officials defend the project by citing the “Supreme Court Continuing Mandamus” for the rehabilitation of Manila Bay, asserting that the project aimed to improve water quality and preserve the bay. However, investigators want to know if spreading 389 million pesos worth of dolomite sand actually meets the Mandamus’s precise requirement to “improve water quality for people to be able to swim.” While some counter that the return of marine life to the bay is a positive indicator, critics argue the primary goal should have been the construction of sewage treatment plants, which were not funded under the 389 million pesos allocation.

A technical yet crucial matter is the origin of the 389 million pesos. Investigators are meticulously reviewing documents from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to determine if the project was a regularly itemized expense (NEP originated project), an insertion into the General Appropriations Act (GAB/Bicam Insertion), or an unprogrammed appropriation. This search aims to clarify whether the project was part of the comprehensive Manila Bay Sustainable Development Master Plan or a haphazard, politically driven decision lacking strategic foresight.

The Risk of ‘Diversion’ and Links to Corruption

During the investigation, criticisms arose from some legislators, including Representative Paolo Duterte, suggesting that the Dolomite Beach inquiry might be a “diversionary tactic” intended to shift public focus away from the more significant corruption scandals within flood control projects in other regions. The parallel scheduling of hearings on both issues leads many to believe there is an attempt to cool down the intensity of the flood control investigations, where “payoffs” and a “template” of corruption have reportedly been uncovered by the ICI through testimony and bank records.

Nonetheless, House investigators maintain that both inquiries are independently valuable and will proceed simultaneously. For the Dolomite Beach project, the focus extends beyond necessity and legality to the question of whether any illicit personal gain, or “kickbacks,” occurred. This is a standard the Philippine Congress is applying in its oversight role: not only checking the judiciousness of spending but also policing the proper use of public funds.

A Lesson in National Prioritization

The Dolomite Beach investigation has transcended the scope of a mere public works project. It has become a symbol for a broader national debate on government responsibility: what are the foremost priorities when budgets are finite and the populace faces crises? Was there a failure to consider alternatives, such as investing in larger, more efficient sewage treatment facilities to sustainably improve water quality, instead of merely creating an artificial beach for aesthetic purposes?

Time will tell if this inquiry uncovers significant wrongdoing or if it remains largely a political discourse. Yet, one thing is certain: this case will set a precedent for future scrutiny of public projects, especially those implemented during times of crisis, ensuring that every peso is spent transparently and justifiably.