The usually procedural setting of the Bicameral Conference Committee meeting was transformed into a high-stakes arena of conflict and conviction recently, centered on the proposed 2026 budget for the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). At the eye of this political hurricane was DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon, who made a controversial and highly scrutinized appeal to Congress: restore the multi-billion peso cuts—estimated by some legislators at around P45 billion—that the Senate had slashed from his department’s infrastructure budget.

This wasn’t a typical bureaucrat’s plea for more money. Instead, it was framed as a battle for the integrity of an unprecedented reform agenda, pitting the promise of systematic governmental savings against the deeply ingrained public fear of budget manipulation and long-standing fiscal irregularities. The emotional intensity of the session reflected the nation’s exhaustion with past spending scandals, creating a moment of defining tension: could the government trust its own anti-graft efforts, or was skepticism the only rational response?

The Fundamental Flaw of the Uniform Cut

To fully grasp the drama, one must understand the genesis of the Senate’s cuts. Secretary Dizon had previously initiated a landmark reform, mandated by the highest office, to tackle historical overpricing in public works. For years, the price of construction materials—from cement and steel bars to gravel and asphalt—was notoriously inflated in government contracts, allowing for various forms of illicit financial schemes. Dizon’s reform involved establishing and strictly applying a new, updated Construction Materials Price Data (CMPD) that accurately reflects current, fair market values, thereby reducing the Approved Budget for Contract (ABC) for all projects.

The Senate, acting in good faith to formalize these anticipated savings, proceeded to apply a blanket, or ‘uniform,’ percentage cut to the total DPWH budget. This approach, while seemingly prudent and responsive to the call for fiscal responsibility, became the core of the conflict. The DPWH argued that this generalized cut was fundamentally flawed and logistically damaging.

Dizon and his team explained that infrastructure projects are not interchangeable. A major national road project requires a drastically different volume and mix of materials than, say, a rural flood control system or a provincial school building. Therefore, applying a uniform 25% reduction, as was cited in some discussions, to the total fund failed to account for the unique Program of Works (POW) for each of the thousands of planned projects.

If the uniform cuts were to stand, the result would be chaotic. Some projects with minimal material costs would have their overall budgets excessively reduced, leading to an immediate and critical funding shortfall. Conversely, projects heavily reliant on materials might see their budgets correctly adjusted, while others—perhaps those with high labor or equipment costs—could still be disproportionately affected. The consequence is not merely inconvenience; it is the risk of rendering many vital projects fiscally non-viable, forcing them to be delayed, suspended, or implemented in a substandard manner.

Secretary Dizon’s Mechanism: Savings, Not Graft

Dizon’s request for the budget’s restoration was not a move to backtrack on the price reductions, but rather a demand for the necessary operational latitude to implement the reform correctly. The strategy he laid out was both simple and brilliant in its promise of accountability:

Restoration of the House Figure: Restore the original budget amount as proposed by the House of Representatives (HGB figures). This provides a fiscally complete starting point for all planned projects.

Project-by-Project Application: Use the restored budget as a baseline, and then, only after restoration, apply the new, reduced material costs (CMPD) to the unique Program of Works for each individual project.

Generation of Savings: The final cost of the project (the ABC) will inevitably be much lower than the restored initial budget. This difference, multiplied across all projects nationwide, generates a massive pool of legitimate, transparent government savings that can be returned to the national coffers or re-appropriated for other critical, unfunded priorities—not misappropriated.

Dizon firmly asserted that this meticulous, project-by-project adjustment is the only way to safeguard both national funds and the successful completion of infrastructure. He vehemently rejected the notion that the restoration was a cover for unauthorized appropriations or illicit funding mechanisms, emphasizing that his entire goal was the prevention of exactly those outcomes.

“The allegations that we will restore the prices to what has been reduced is absolutely incorrect,” Dizon stated, underscoring that the new Construction Materials Price Data is already implemented for the next wave of projects and its application is mandatory.

The Ironclad Safeguard and Rep. Rodriguez’s Endorsement

To further cement public and legislative confidence, the Secretary detailed the severe safeguards embedded within a new Department Order (DO). This directive mandates compliance prior to procurement: the head of every implementing office must issue a certification attesting to the application of the updated CMPD. Crucially, no procurement can commence without this certification.

More significantly, Dizon assured the bicameral committee that the DO includes robust penal provisions—a mechanism that ensures implementers can be charged with serious ethical breaches and face administrative and legal prosecution for disobedience. This represented a fundamental shift: the reform was no longer merely advisory, but legally enforceable, creating a genuine deterrent against any implementing officer tempted to revert to old ways of budgetary irregularities.

This commitment to systemic clean-up earned high praise from one of the hearing’s participants, Representative Rufus Rodriguez, who voiced strong support for the Secretary. Rodriguez hailed Dizon as one of the most trusted officials who is simply following the President’s directive to remove graft from public works. Rodriguez lauded the Secretary’s existing track record, pointing out that Dizon had already dismissed high officials, including regional directors and district engineers, and filed cases against them.

Rodriguez’s conclusion was a ringing endorsement: “It is now clear that we approve the budget as proposed by the house of representatives.” He argued that the proper approval would allow the DPWH to proceed with finalizing the ABC for each project, ensuring they are implemented correctly, which in turn would boost the country’s economy, increase the GDP, and generate employment nationwide.

The Architects of Skepticism: Tulfo and Marcos

However, the path to budget restoration was fiercely contested by influential senators, whose questions channeled the deep-seated public cynicism bred by years of spending scandals.

Senator Erwin Tulfo, while maintaining a balanced stance, put Dizon directly to the test. He demanded that the Secretary “convince the public” watching live that the P45 billion restoration was neither an “insertion” nor a form of “misappropriated funding.” Tulfo starkly noted the prevailing negative sentiment online: “The people are saying it will be pocketed, it will go back to the old ways, it will be stolen.” He highlighted the failure of previous safety measures in past scandals, such as the infamous flood control anomalies, which had bypassed bidding, technical working groups, and even audit oversight.

Dizon’s reply was direct and pointed: the critical difference now, which distinguishes this era from past failures, is the presidential directive and the resulting DPWH policy that mandates the lowering of material prices to market rates. He stressed that this single action—something never successfully done before—changes the entire playing field, attacking the source of the irregularities at its root.

The most fiery confrontation came from Senator Imee Marcos, who was intensely critical of the process. Marcos voiced deep frustration with the perceived lack of certainty and the potential for bureaucratic delay. She questioned the timeline, noting that early procurement—a critical step usually completed by October to ensure projects don’t get delayed by the ensuing rainy season—had been completely halted.

“If that is the case, we are definitely facing delays,” she stated grimly, projecting that the lack of certainty would lead to a period of stagnation in the first, second, and possibly third quarters of the year. This uncertainty, she claimed, created the perception among the public that the process was a form of deception.

Marcos escalated her criticism by accusing the Secretary of holding the bicameral committee hostage and displaying a fundamental lack of trust in his own regional implementers. “If you truly have no trust in the district engineers, then you should fire them all,” she challenged. “What reason do we have to follow you if you yourself do not trust one another?”

Dizon refuted the accusation of him altering his statements or stalling the process. He clarified that his presence was solely to present the potential economic and logistical fallout of the Senate’s third reading version of the budget, and that the final decision now rested with the bicameral body and Congress. He passionately defended the need for the DPWH to continue its essential work while simultaneously undergoing a necessary, painful cleanup process: “It is vital that the DPWH’s work does not stop… We are doing the best we can, given the current extraordinary situation.”

A Defining Moment for National Infrastructure

The dramatic hearing underscored the critical juncture facing the nation’s infrastructure spending. The core issue is no longer if the government can generate savings, but how to institutionalize a reliable system of fiscal management that is resistant to the pressures of political expediency and historical malfeasance.

Secretary Dizon’s proposal is a high-risk, high-reward gambit. By restoring the full budget before applying the price cuts project-by-project, he is taking on the burden of proof, effectively turning the entire budget into a massive, live-streamed trust exercise. The success of his reform hinges entirely on the integrity of the subsequent project-level adjustments and the enforcement of the new penal order. If the system works, the government generates billions in verified savings, and the public sees a new model of fiscal transparency. If it fails, the restored funds become the very irregularities the skeptics feared.

The bicameral conference committee, therefore, faces a monumental choice: should they allow procedural caution and historical skepticism—as championed by the Senate’s initial blanket cut—to potentially cripple the delivery of thousands of necessary infrastructure projects? Or should they take a leap of faith, grant the requested restoration, and trust the DPWH’s new, detailed, and penalty-backed reform mechanism to succeed where previous administrations have faltered? The final decision will define not just the 2026 infrastructure landscape, but the future of systematic accountability in public works.