A University of the Philippines (UP) study presented this conclusion after an examination of the havoc that flooding has wrought on the country’s infrastructure despite the humongous amounts of taxpayer money spent on flood control projects by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

“Its flood control projects alone are supposed to abate damage, but with many of these projects being substandard, if existing at all, it is no wonder that the impact of flooding [on] communities remains high, especially in areas where the flood control structures are supposed to be located,” the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) said in a policy note it issued on Oct. 3.

“The numbers tell a damning yet familiar story of systemic failure,” NCPAG said in the policy note titled “Just the tip of the iceberg: The need for an agency-wide reform of the DPWH.”

Top of the list

Topping the list with the biggest damage to infrastructure from flooding is Albay, the home province of resigned Ako Bicol Rep. Zaldy Co, a former chair of the House of Representatives committee on appropriations. Co is believed to have “inserted” tens of billions of pesos into the national budget for the nationwide flood control and other infrastructure projects cornered by his Sunwest Corp. and other related construction firms.

According to NCPAG, Albay was allocated ₱19.46 billion for 273 flood projects in 2018–2024. The contract cost amounted to ₱16.7 billion.

But in 2017–2023, Albay lost ₱7.33 billion in infrastructure damage alone. Losses in agriculture, private property, human lives and livelihood would cause the total amount of damage to rise considerably. (See Table 1.)

In Oriental Mindoro, the ₱11.3-billion allotment for 138 flood control projects failed to prevent a ₱4.1-billion damage to infrastructure, NCPAG said. 

Besides Albay, three other provinces in the Bicol region— Masbate, Catanduanes and Camarines Sur—landed in the top 15 provinces in terms of damage to infrastructure due to flooding. 

Damage in Masbate between 2017 and 2023 was reported at ₱1.32 billion despite 69 flood control projects costing ₱3.31 billion in 2018–2024; Catanduanes, ₱1.24 billion (46 projects worth ₱1.83 billion); and Camarines Norte, ₱1.22 billion (97 projects worth ₱4.36 billion).

Table 1. Damage to infrastructure and funding for flood control projects

The damage to infrastructure is not limited to these provinces. “[T]his pattern repeats across the entirety of the Philippines,” NCPAG said. 

The problem is not unexpected. Less than half of the budget, if at all, went to the construction of flood mitigation structures because the bulk of the funds was lost to corruption, according to testimonies at the House and Senate inquiries into corruption in DPWH flood control projects.

“While the budget for flood mitigation has increased, there is still a clear divide between the budget investments to solve the national flooding issues versus the infrastructural damage sustained predominantly from flooding itself,” NCPAG said.

Not a funding issue

The data show that this crisis is not a funding issue. “[T]herefore, increasing money allocation at this problem has empirically not worked. The demonstrable pattern of high expenditure across a large quantity of flood control projects superimposed with poor mitigation performance is a strong indication of systemic flaws,” it said. 

Since 2011, the DPWH has received a total of ₱7.9 trillion—the highest allocation among all government agencies. A whopping 96% of the amount was allocated for capital outlay, including the construction and preservation of bridges, roads and flood control infrastructures.

The Flood Management Program (FMP) with a budget of ₱250 billion in 2025 represents only a fraction of the DPWH’s total allocation for flood control initiatives, according to NCPAG. 

“A significant portion of this infrastructure is funded through other budgetary mechanisms, thus creating a second, larger stream of flood control funding that operates alongside the FMP,” it said, adding:  

“These projects are embedded within programs, such as the Maintenance of Flood Control and Drainage Systems under Support to Operations, and the Sustainable Infrastructure Projects Alleviating Gaps (SIPAG) and Basic Infrastructure Program (BIP), both under the Convergence and Special Support Programs introduced under the FY 2022 GAA (General Appropriations Act).”   (See Table 2.)

‘Shadow’ flood control budget

NCPAG noted that the scale of this “shadow” flood control budget was substantial and had consistently grown over the years. “In fact, the allocation for these non-FMP structures has increased from ₱81.552 billion in 2022 to ₱115.262 billion in 2025,” it said.

Most of the budget in 2025 for non-FMP structures is for the construction or maintenance of general structures like walls, revetments, dikes, slope/riverbank protection, drainage systems and coastal protection infrastructure. “This shows that a large part of flood control spending happens outside the main program,” NCPAG said.

Table 2. Flood control projects outside of FMP (2022–2025)

Roads as flood control

NCPAG said flood risk management was not limited to typical flood control structures like drainages, walls, dikes and revetments. “The GAA clearly stipulates that all road infrastructure projects shall provide an adequate drainage system and shall take into consideration the increase in the volume of rainfall due to the effect of climate change (Special Provision No. 17, 2025 GAA).”

The provision, it said, practically classified all road projects as flood mitigation interventions, covering all road infrastructure under the DPWH’s Network Development, Asset Preservation, and Convergence and Special Support programs, as well as parts of its locally funded and foreign-assisted projects. 

In the 2025 GAA, funding for the construction, repair and rehabilitation of roads reached ₱541.98 billion—more than double the combined budget of the official and non-official flood control programs in 2024 (₱115.26 billion and ₱248 billion FMP).

“This means that the single largest line item for flood mitigation is not officially counted as such,” NCPAG said. “And yet, road projects are not primarily evaluated on their flood control performance despite the presence of flood-specific guidelines and standards, making it extremely difficult to hold anyone accountable when drainage components do fail.”

NCPAG said other areas of the GAA deserve the same level of scrutiny as the Flood Management Program because they also contain allocations related to disaster risk reduction and management.

A closer inspection of the detailed DPWH appropriations reveals that significant allocations relevant to the management of floods and other hazards like earthquake, landslide, fire and storm surge are embedded in other program areas of the agency’s budget, according to NCPAG.

Disaster-related funding of the DPWH from bridges to evacuation centers and disaster risk reduction and management operations centers accounts for 83% (or ₱926 billion) of its total budget in 2025. 

Table 3. Number and cost of constructed evacuation and operations centers (2023–2025)

Recommendations

To address the issues it raised, NCPAG proposes the following in its policy note: 

1. For the Independent Commission for Infrastructure 

Expand the investigation to cover projects outside the FMP that are actually tagged as flood control structures and disaster-related structures, such as roads, bridges, evacuation and operations centers.

2. For the Executive Branch 

Enforce systemic reforms. While it is acknowledged that the DPWH is designated as the government’s central engineering arm, factors such as absorptive capacity, efficiency, effectiveness and economy should be considered given the exponential growth in the DPWH budget. Other national government agencies can be strengthened to implement infrastructure requirements related to their mandate, with the DPWH’s role limited to technical assistance on planning and design standards. 

The devolution of local public infrastructure to local government units (LGU) should likewise be considered as a significant amount of allocation for local infrastructure projects, albeit lodged under convergence programs like SIPAG and BIP. The extent of convergence, especially with the concerned LGUs, should be well established to avoid duplication of allocation from national and local government resources.

3. For Congress  

Transfer the disaster risk reduction functions of the DPWH to a dedicated agency, possibly the proposed Department of Water Resources (identified as priority legislation by the President). 

4. For oversight agencies

Strengthen budget accountability mechanisms. Infrastructure projects may be tagged starting from the planning and design, funding and procurement, to implementation and delivery phase. Information on past repair and maintenance activities may also be tagged to provide historical investments made on specific projects.

“If the systemic issues remain unresolved, Filipinos will continue to experience flooding not because of lack of funding but because the DPWH is drowning in an iceberg of projects that it cannot effectively implement and fully account for,” NCPAG said.

The policy note of NCPAG was authored by K. B. Berse, K. R. De Leon, M. P. Milante, F. M. Garcia, M. Estellena, O. C. Bondad, R. Caballero, M. K. Hontanosas, E. Beltran, A. Caingat, L. Alejandria, J. C. Cabuhat, T. Pañares and M. L. Avila.