💥 “FLOOD OF FRAUD”: How Contractor Sarah Discaya Went from Multi‑Billion Contracts to Prison in the P96.5M “Ghost” Infrastructure Scandal 🔴

Published on December 22, 2025

Introduction

A namesake once synonymous with government construction success and high‑stake public works contracts—Cezarah “Sarah” Discaya—now finds herself behind bars in one of the most notorious corruption cases of the decade. What started as routine infrastructure outsourcing has spiraled into a **major Philippine scandal involving alleged malversation of public funds, graft, falsified projects, and a “ghost” flood control project in Davao Occidental valued at an astonishing P96.5 million.

The former contractor, whose companies had reportedly secured billions of pesos worth of government contracts, is now detained under non‑bailable corruption and malversation charges. Her fall from prominence has sparked national conversations about systemic corruption, government accountability, and how public funds are managed.

This detailed report breaks down every angle of the case—from how the alleged scheme was uncovered, to the legal processes that led to her arrest and detention, and the wider implications for Philippine infrastructure oversight.

Table of Contents

Who Is Sarah Discaya? From Contractor to Controversy
The Davao Occidental “Ghost” Flood Control Project Explained
How the Anomaly Was First Flagged
Ombudsman Files Charges; Marcos Orders Arrests
From Surrender to Warrant: The Arrest of Discaya
Legal Charges: Graft, Malversation, and the Law
Transfer, Detention, and Life Behind Bars
Public Reaction: Outrage, Politics, and Debate
What This Means for Philippine Infrastructure
Broader Reflections: Corruption, Accountability, and Reform

1. Who Is Sarah Discaya? From Contractor to Controversy

Cezarah “Sarah” Discaya first rose to public attention as a private contractor whose firms repeatedly won lucrative government infrastructure projects, particularly flood control initiatives. Some reports indicate that corporations linked to her and her husband, Pacifico “Curlee” Discaya, cornered about 20% of the nation’s flood control contracts, accumulating billions in government funds through multiple entities.

Discaya’s companies, including St. Timothy Construction Corporation and others, became notorious not only for their volume of contracts but also for their sudden prominence and rapid accumulation of wealth. Their success was often questioned by watchdogs and critics long before the scandal broke, but it was the ghost project in Davao Occidental that ultimately ignited a full criminal investigation.

2. The Davao Occidental “Ghost” Flood Control Project Explained

The Davao Occidental controversy centers on a P96.5‑million flood control and revetment project ostensibly meant to protect communities from seasonal flooding in Jose Abad Santos Municipality. The contract was awarded in January 2022, and reports stated that the project was “completed and fully paid” that same year.

However, an on‑site inspection by the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) in September 2025 revealed something entirely different: no meaningful construction had ever taken place at the location. What was marked as finished work on paper was nowhere visible on the ground—leading investigators to label it a “ghost” project.

This stark contrast between the official documentation and reality became a focal point for criminal inquiries, raising urgent questions about accountability and oversight.

3. How the Anomaly Was First Flagged

Initial scrutiny came from the government’s internal audits and investigative units, as well as pressure from both executive and legislative bodies to address skyrocketing irregularities in flood control spending.

In mid‑2025, the Independent Commission for Infrastructure and other agencies including the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) openly investigated multiple flood control contracts amid public demand for transparency. These probes uncovered numerous “completed” projects that were found to be nonexistent or grossly substandard on inspection.

The Davao project stood out among these because of its official status as fully paid yet physically absent—a discrepancy that compelled the Office of the Ombudsman to move swiftly.

4. Ombudsman Files Charges; Marcos Orders Arrests

In early December 2025, the Office of the Ombudsman formally filed charges against Discaya, company officials including Maria Roma Angeline Rimando, and eight DPWH‑Davao Occidental engineering officers, citing evidence of malversation of public funds and violations of the Philippine Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).

President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. publicly announced that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Lapu‑Lapu City had issued warrants of arrest against ten suspects, including Discaya, for their alleged role in the scandal. He highlighted that the charges were non‑bailable, signaling the gravity of the accusations and reinforcing the government’s stance on corruption.

Marcos also ordered the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to track down key suspects ahead of warrants, underscoring the administration’s urgency in pursuing accountability.

5. From Surrender to Warrant: The Arrest of Discaya

Rather than waiting for enforcement action, Discaya took the dramatic step of voluntarily surrendering to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on December 8, 2025, seeking to present herself before a looming warrant was formally issued. Her legal team reiterated that her surrender was not an admission of guilt but a strategic move amid the mounting legal pressure.

Several days later, on December 18, 2025, the NBI officially served the arrest warrant, completing booking procedures that included fingerprinting, medical check‑ups, and processing. Videos from the processing center show Discaya in a detainee shirt as part of standard protocol.

While some officials linked to the project also surrendered voluntarily, several others, including Rimando, were apprehended in coordination with law enforcement agencies.

6. Legal Charges: Graft, Malversation, and the Law

Discaya and her co‑accused are facing multiple criminal charges:

Malversation of Public Funds or Property through Falsification — alleging fraudulent use or handling of government money based on falsified reports and documents.
Violation of the Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, Section 3e) — accusing the defendants of manifest partiality, bad faith, and gross negligence resulting in undue injury to the government.(Philstar.com)

Under Philippine law, malversation of public funds is non‑bailable, meaning that if probable cause is found by a judge, the accused may be detained without the option of posting bail. This aspect of the law reflects the seriousness of misusing public resources entrusted by the taxpayer.

7. Transfer, Detention, and Life Behind Bars

After her processing at NBI facilities, Discaya was transferred to Cebu, where the designated anti‑graft court (RTC Branch 27 in Lapu‑Lapu City) will handle the case. Authorities transported her under tight supervision, and she remains detained while awaiting formal proceedings.

Jail personnel have made clear that no special treatment will be afforded; she and her co‑accused are housed in standard jail dormitory units, reflecting a strict enforcement of detention protocols.=

As preliminary hearings begin, prosecutors are expected to present evidence including financial records, inspections, witness statements, and documentation from government audits. Discaya’s defense team will have the opportunity to respond, challenge evidence, or argue procedural defenses.

8. Public Reaction: Outrage, Politics, and Debate

News of Discaya’s detention rapidly spread across media and social platforms, triggering intense public debate. Many citizens expressed outrage over alleged misuse of public funds—especially in projects meant to protect vulnerable communities from floods and natural disasters.

Critics have taken to social media to call out systemic corruption and have drawn parallels with previous high‑profile scandals, demanding transparency and stronger enforcement. Some commenters also reflected skepticism, questioning whether all responsible parties—particularly political collaborators or facilitators—would face the same level of accountability.

Meanwhile, some defense voices emphasize the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, reiterating that legal processes must run their full course.

9. What This Means for Philippine Infrastructure

The Discaya case comes at a critical point in national debates over infrastructure governance. With billions allocated for flood control and disaster mitigation, scandals tied to “ghost projects” undermine public confidence and raise questions about oversight mechanisms.

Government critics argue that if such major anomalies can occur without detection for years, this points to deeper structural failures in contract awarding, monitoring, and accountability. Proponents of reform hope that this legal episode will push for strengthened audit systems, transparent procurement processes, and harsher penalties for abuses.

10. Broader Reflections: Corruption, Accountability, and Reform

The arrest and detention of Sarah Discaya over the P96.5‑million flood control scandal symbolize a broader battle against corruption in the Philippines. They spotlight the complex interplay between private contractors, government agencies, and the systems that govern public works.

While the legal journey ahead is lengthy and riddled with procedural developments, the case has already sparked sustained public engagement with issues of ethics, responsibility, and the stewardship of public funds. For many Filipinos, it represents a test of whether accountability truly applies to all sectors—especially those with power, influence, and access to public resources.

Conclusion

The dramatic fall of contractor Sarah Discaya—from infrastructure insider to jailed defendant—marks a watershed moment in the Philippines’ fight against corruption. Her imprisonment over the alleged P96.5‑million “ghost” flood control project in Davao Occidental underscores how deeply fiscal anomalies can ripple through government systems and everyday lives.

As courts prepare to hear the case, and as public discourse continues to enforce demands for justice, this saga remains a powerful illustration of the stakes in protecting public funds and the foundational importance of transparency in governance.

Related Articles

Anatomy of a “Ghost Project”: How Infrastructure Funds Vanish
Philippine Anti‑Graft Law Explained: Graft, Corruption, and Accountability
Flood Control Scandals and Public Trust: A National Overview
What Happens Next After an Arrest in High‑Profile Corruption Cases
The Role of the Ombudsman and NBI in Anti‑Corruption Enforcement