By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — House Deputy Speaker Janette Garin is calling for the return of flood-control and shoreline protection projects to the 2027 national budget, but only under a tighter system of validation, monitoring and accountability designed to prevent the abuses that have turned the government’s flood-control program into a target of public scrutiny.
Garin said legitimate projects in flood- and disaster-prone communities should not be sacrificed because of controversies surrounding allegedly anomalous, poorly built or questionable infrastructure projects.
She cited her district in coastal Iloilo, where communities remain exposed to high tides, overflowing rivers and other flooding threats that require government-funded protection.
“These are actually important projects to protect communities,” Garin said during an online media conference Monday.
But she acknowledged that the flood-control program has been badly damaged by allegations of irregularities, making stronger safeguards necessary before new projects are financed.
Garin said her understanding was that flood-control projects located in validated high-risk areas had undergone additional scrutiny before being considered for inclusion in the proposed 2027 National Expenditure Program.
The Department of Budget and Management, Department of Public Works and Highways and local governments, she said, have been coordinating on additional requirements and technical details for projects seeking national funding.
Among the measures she identified are on-site inspections, clearly defined project boundaries, exact measurements of the areas to be protected, technical specifications and safeguards against fraud and manipulation.
She also stressed the importance of independent monitoring, including the participation of citizen watchdog groups, to ensure that projects approved on paper actually deliver the protection promised to communities.
“With the proper alignment, those [projects in] red areas are badly needed. And with the proper watchdogs, they should be returned,” Garin said.
Garin opposed the wholesale termination of flood-control projects, arguing that eliminating the program altogether could punish communities that genuinely need government protection.
“These need to be monitored, but it does not mean to say that we should stop them,” she said.
“If we completely stop this program, what will happen to the good projects? What will happen to the communities that we need to protect?” she added.
She also floated the blacklisting of contractors responsible for substandard projects as one possible measure to keep erring firms from securing additional government work.
For Garin, the issue is not whether flood-control infrastructure should exist, but whether public money is being directed to projects that are necessary, technically sound and properly implemented.
Garin further said changes to the proposed budget during congressional deliberations should follow established parameters rather than become a vehicle for arbitrary insertions.
She said legitimate amendments may be necessary when conditions on the ground change—for example, when a river changes course, a structure collapses, a new danger zone emerges or a major landslide alters the risk profile of an area.
But any reallocation, she said, must carry a clear justification and undergo review by House leadership and the Committee on Appropriations.
Garin also warned against a repeat of alleged practices involving the sale or trading of government projects, emphasizing that public infrastructure must serve communities rather than become a source of private gain.
“Government programs should not be sold like a commodity,” she said.
The debate over the 2027 flood-control budget now puts Congress in a difficult balancing act: preserve funding for communities that genuinely face flooding while building enough safeguards to ensure that every peso released for flood protection produces an actual public benefit.
ia/xf
