THE Philippines is drowning—not just in floodwaters but in a cesspool of corruption and bureaucratic failure.
Congressional probes into the Department of Public Works and Highways have exposed ₱545 billion squandered on “ghost projects” and political insertions, with Bulacan as ground zero for phantom dikes and padded contracts.
Enter Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan’s Senate Bill 225, the National Water Resources Management Act, promising a Department of Water Resources to unify the nation’s fractured water governance, streamline flood control, and deliver irrigation and potable water.
It’s a seductive pitch, but in a country where political will vanishes faster than a summer stream, this bill risks being a mirage—or worse, a repackaged scam.
Let’s dissect whether it’s a genuine fix or just another dam disaster.
Bureaucratic Bloat or Bold Consolidation?
Pangilinan’s DWR aims to end the “sangay-sangay” chaos of water governance, where agencies like the DENR’s Water Resources Management Office, National Water Resources Board, and DPWH trip over each other.
A Bureau of Flood Control and Drainage within DWR would set standards, plan projects, and coordinate with DPWH and local government units.
Centralization could align planning with river basin realities, cutting redundant studies and stopping fiascos like Bulacan’s ghost dikes, existing only in budgets and bank accounts.
But creating a new department doesn’t guarantee consolidation.
The WRMO, a 2023 Marcos Jr. creation, already claims to “harmonize” water efforts.
Without explicit language to abolish WRMO or clarify NWRB’s fate, DWR could just layer more bureaucracy atop the mess.
The bill’s silence on transition logistics—staff transfers, budget shifts, sunset clauses—is a red flag. Will WRMO staff just get new DWR badges?
Will NWRB’s regulatory powers be gutted? Philippine reorgs often birth new fiefdoms without slaying old ones. The DWR needs a machete to clear the clutter, not a paintbrush for a fresh logo.
Anti-Corruption: Real Reform or Hollow Theater?
DPWH’s flood control scandals—billions lost to non-existent projects, 20-50 percent kickbacks, and politically connected contractors—expose a rotten procurement system.
Pangilinan’s DWR envisions technical standards and basin-wide plans to curb “ghost project” culture by locking projects into scientific priorities, not pork barrel whims. It’s a compelling idea: a technocratic shield against insertions.
Yet the bill lacks enforceable transparency.
Where’s the mandate for a public, real-time data portal with project maps, costs, and contractor names? Where’s the requirement to name budget proponents slipping ₱500 million “flood control” items into the budget?
Without these, DWR risks being a shiny shell for old scams.
The Commission on Audit is probing DPWH, but the bill doesn’t ensure COA’s real-time data access. Vague “coordination” with DPWH and LGUs sounds like fluff, not accountability.
If master plans aren’t legally binding, politicians can still funnel cash to pet projects.
Corruption thrives on opacity; without radical transparency, DWR might centralize graft, not end it.
Regulator vs. Operator: Checks or Chaos?
Merging standard-setting, planning, and implementation under DWR invites a glaring conflict.
NWRB currently regulates water rights and standards with quasi-judicial powers—a vital check. If absorbed into DWR without independence, you get a regulator marking its own homework.
DWR approving its own designs or permits is a recipe for capture, like the Philippine Ports Authority’s cozy dual role as port operator and regulator.
An independent Water Regulatory Commission with fixed-term commissioners and a separate budget is essential to enforce standards and penalize violations.
Without it, DWR becomes player and referee, undermining accountability.
Implementation Abyss: Manila’s Grip or Local Power?
Flooding is hyper-local—clogged esteros, silted rivers.
Yet SB 225 leans on a Manila-centric DWR.
Basin-wide plans sound good but flop without empowering LGUs, who handle drainage maintenance. The bill’s “technical assistance” is vague—where’s the funding for desilting or training?
LGUs are cash-strapped; devolution hasn’t delivered fiscal muscle. Centralizing project approval without boosting local capacity will choke progress.
