The Bombshell Disclosure: Unprecedented Funds Concealed

The political landscape has been rocked by an unprecedented disclosure concerning the nation’s infrastructure budget. Congressman Leandro Leviste of Batangas’ First District, the son of Senator Loren Legarda, has bravely stepped forward to challenge the systemic lack of transparency within the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), alleging the concealment of a massive volume of discretionary funds that dwarfs previous controversies.

Leviste’s public revelation centers on a staggering P1.2 trillion insertion in the DPWH budget for the fiscal years 2025 and 2026—a monumental amount that has allegedly been deliberately withheld from public knowledge and official scrutiny. The lawmaker expressed sharp alarm after identifying this immense figure, emphasizing that the failure of the agency to make the full details public constitutes a direct affront to transparency and accountability.

Leviste demanded that if the DPWH is truly committed to open governance, it must immediately release the comprehensive database of proponents for the National Expenditure Program (NEP). This crucial documentation, he argues, is the only way to reveal the identities behind the insertion of projects totaling P72 billion for 2025 and an even more shocking P496.97 billion for 2026. The funds in question are allegedly tucked away within the agency’s non-allocable or leadership fund categories, effectively shielding the proponents from public view.

The disclosure immediately raised fundamental questions regarding the integrity of the national budgeting process. Leviste stressed that the scope of these insertions suggests complicity that extends far beyond ordinary legislators. He pointed out that internal DPWH files reportedly indicate that many of these projects were “politically pushed” or inserted directly by private contractors, often bypassing the proper planning and engineering evaluation process. This method, he noted, bears a disturbing resemblance to prior scandals but is now cloaked under layers of bureaucratic concealment.

The political implications of this alleged systemic deception are profound. Leviste theorized that the continued obstruction to releasing the complete list is likely due to the involvement of high-ranking officials. He publicly stated his belief that the insertions implicate cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, and other senior officials, making the withholding of documents a strategic maneuver to protect powerful figures from accountability.

The Stalling of Justice and the Cost of Evasion

The Congressman further cast doubt on the ability of existing anti-corruption bodies to effectively prosecute the matter without external assistance. Leviste stated his appreciation for the efforts of agencies like the Inter-Agency Council Against Corruption (ICI) and the Ombudsman but warned that their investigations would inevitably fail to uncover the full extent of the alleged wrongdoing if the DPWH continues to obstruct access to its files.

The core problem, as articulated by Leviste, is that accountability cannot be achieved in a vacuum of information. Investigations, no matter how earnest, are rendered ineffective when the very documents that prove wrongdoing—namely, the complete list of proponents and internal project files—are deliberately shielded by the implementing agency itself. This situation creates a chilling precedent, suggesting that institutional players can successfully circumvent justice simply by refusing to comply with transparency mandates.

The battle for the P1.2 trillion truth is, therefore, a test of institutional will. Leviste’s ongoing demand for the release of the non-allocable funds list for 2026—a significant component of the total alleged insertion—is a direct challenge to the administration to prove its commitment to clean governance.

The Infrastructure Kingpins: An Investigative Report

The DPWH budget scandal takes on an even more politically charged dimension when viewed through the lens of a recent report published by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). This report identifies two highly influential and politically connected lawmakers who have allegedly received unprecedented allocations of discretionary spending for their respective districts.

The PCIJ report zeroes in on Congressman Sandro Marcos, the presidential son representing Ilocos Norte’s First District, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez. The findings are staggering, suggesting that political kinship and influence were prioritized over demographic and development necessity.

According to the PCIJ data, over a three-year period (2023 to 2025), Congressman Sandro Marcos allegedly received a massive P15.8 billion in DPWH allocable funds for his district. This figure is nearly double the amount allocated to significantly more populous areas, such as Rizal’s First District, which has four times the population of Ilocos Norte. The Ilocos Norte district, with a relatively small population of approximately 320,000, received an allocation that is disproportionate to its size and needs.

The second lawmaker highlighted is Martin Romualdez, a close relative of the President, who allegedly received P14.4 billion in allocable funds for his district during the same period. While his district is also small in population, the sheer volume of discretionary spending funneled to these two political allies—totaling over P30 billion—is a powerful indictment of alleged preferential treatment. The report explicitly highlights that both legislators represent districts with small electorates but received the largest discretionary allocations, raising severe ethical questions.

Leviste’s claims and the PCIJ’s findings converge on a singular, uncomfortable truth: the DPWH budget appears to be systematically leveraged to reward political allies and family members, while simultaneously concealing massive, unaudited amounts of public money.

Institutional Defense and Evasive Responses

The political response to these explosive allegations has been characterized by evasion and generalized statements of trust. When questioned about the PCIJ report concerning the massive allocations to his relative, the Palace offered a response that critics immediately dismissed as inadequate and dismissive.

The official statement from the Palace confirmed that the President was aware of the report but expressed confidence that Congressman Sandro Marcos “knows what he is doing and knows how to answer” the allegations. This response, which essentially delegated accountability to the accused without promising a serious, independent investigation, was met with sharp criticism. Commentators argued that a public official, particularly the presidential son, is held to a higher standard of transparency, and the government’s role is not to offer personal assurances but to conduct an immediate, thorough audit to preserve public trust.

The administration’s defense mechanisms further came into question when the video discussed the search of the condominium unit of former Congressman Zaldy by the NBI (National Bureau of Investigation). Zaldy, who had previously taken an antagonistic political stance against the administration, was the subject of a raid related to alleged bid-rigging in flood control projects. Critics pointed out the suspicious timing of this high-profile raid, arguing it was a calculated act of political misdirection designed to pull media and public attention away from the far more damaging DPWH budget scandal and the P30 billion in allegedly biased allocations.

The public perception of justice is severely undermined when anti-corruption efforts appear selective. The administration’s focus on a political antagonist while simultaneously defending its relatives facing major financial allegations creates a narrative of institutional bias and political weaponization of law enforcement.

The Call for Accountability: A Test of Governance

The revelations brought forth by Congressman Leviste serve as a crucial test for the current administration’s promise of transparent governance. The P1.2 trillion in alleged hidden DPWH funds, combined with the P30 billion in allegedly biased discretionary spending, presents a crisis of accountability that demands more than evasive answers.

The path forward, as argued by proponents of transparency, requires several immediate and decisive actions:

Immediate Disclosure: The DPWH must immediately comply with Leviste’s demand to release the complete, itemized list of proponents and projects associated with the alleged P1.2 trillion insertion.

Independent Audit: An independent, uncompromised audit of the P30 billion in allocations granted to the President’s relatives is necessary to determine if the funds were utilized based on merit, population need, and proper engineering assessment, or if political influence was the deciding factor.

Strengthened Oversight: The government must demonstrate its support for corruption watchdogs by giving them the resources and, crucially, the unfettered access to internal documents required to pursue high-ranking officials implicated in the budget manipulation.

The consequence of failing this test is the irreversible erosion of public trust and the perpetuation of a political culture where secrecy and political kinship allegedly trump transparency and public service. Leviste’s courageous act of disclosure ensures that the nation cannot ignore the massive financial and ethical cost of this alleged budget secrecy. The truth, Leviste maintains, is locked away in those DPWH files, and until they are opened, the shadow of corruption will continue to undermine the nation’s democratic foundation.