“The DPWH leaks are a test, not just for Sara Duterte, but for the nation’s commitment to accountability”
THE so-called “DPWH leaks” have reopened an old but unresolved question in Philippine governance: who truly bears responsibility for the systematic manipulation of the national budget during the Duterte administration?
As more details emerge linking senior officials and political figures to specific public works allocations, Vice President Sara Duterte finds it increasingly difficult to distance herself from a controversy that strikes at the heart of fiscal accountability.
According to a report from the Bilyonaryo News Channel, at least 16 line items amounting to ₱1 billion were included in the 2020 budget of the Department of Public Works and Highways at the request of then Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte.
These projects—mostly road works, with 15 located in Davao City and one in Davao del Sur—were eventually enacted into law as part of the General Appropriations Act .
Two of the line items were explicitly listed under her name.
This revelation is politically significant.
While requesting projects for one’s locality is not, by itself, illegal, the context matters.
These alleged insertions surfaced amid broader claims of widespread and systematic “budget insertions” involving members of the Duterte family and close allies of the previous administration.
ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio, House deputy minority leader, argues these disclosures undermine any attempt by the Vice President to claim moral or political distance from the DPWH controversy.
Tinio’s assertion is not merely rhetorical. He points out that the ₱1 billion allegedly linked to Sara Duterte is separate from the far larger ₱51-billion allocation reportedly associated with Davao City Rep. Paolo “Pulong” Duterte, a figure earlier cited by the late DPWH Undersecretary Cathy Cabral.
Taken together, these figures suggest not isolated requests but a pattern of privileged access to public funds.
What is most disturbing is the implication that such practices were normalized at the highest levels of power.
Tinio argues that it was during the 2016–2022 period that what he calls “walang kapantay na pandarambong” of the DPWH budget took root.
If true, this would mean that the problem was not simply a few rogue officials exploiting loopholes, but a system that enabled political insiders to funnel enormous sums into favored projects with minimal scrutiny.
The alleged involvement of former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque and Senator Bong Go further strengthens this argument. BNC reports that Roque had four requested projects across various provinces, two of which were eventually included in the GAA.
Meanwhile, Bong Go, who has long faced allegations of influence-peddling, was also cited by Tinio as having benefited from the system while in power.
The geographic spread of these projects suggests that influence over the DPWH budget was not confined to one region, but extended nationwide.
Defenders of the former administration might argue all these items passed through Congress and were therefore legal. But legality is not the same as legitimacy.
The budget process is meant to balance national priorities, guided by transparency and equity.
When line items are reportedly inserted at the request of powerful individuals, often outside open deliberations, it raises serious questions about fairness and governance, even if formal procedures were technically followed.
Vice President Duterte’s current position makes this issue even more sensitive.
As the country’s second-highest official, she is expected to embody integrity and accountability.
Claims that she benefited from the same practices now under scrutiny weaken her moral authority to speak on corruption or good governance.
Silence or outright denial, without a willingness to submit to independent scrutiny, only deepens public skepticism.
At this stage, what is most urgently needed is a comprehensive and impartial investigation covering the entire Duterte administration.
Limiting inquiries to select individuals or recent years risks turning accountability into a political weapon rather than a genuine reform effort. If public trust is to be restored, all officials—regardless of rank, surname, or current position—must be held to the same standard.
The DPWH leaks are a test, not just for Sara Duterte, but for the nation’s commitment to accountability.
Will we allow billions in public funds to be treated as private spoils, or will we demand that those entrusted with power answer for their actions?
The answer will shape not only the legacy of the Duterte family, but the future of Philippine democracy itself.
(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)
