TL;DR: What’s happening and why it matters

The short version: The Senate Blue Ribbon is digging into flood control corruption Philippines after multiple insiders said DPWH flood works were priced up or built cheap so a “proponent’s share” of roughly 20–30% could be skimmed, with some projects reported as finished even when they were junk or basically ghost. Former engineers Brice Ericson Hernandez and Jaypee Mendoza told senators that kickbacks drove substandard work, while ex-district engineer Henry Alcantara detailed a 30% cut in his sworn statement. COA has already flagged at least ₱341 million in substandard or non-existent projects and says a performance review is underway, while the new Independent Commission for Infrastructure warned of document tampering as it opens cases. All this lands as 2025 flood control spending hits about ₱360 billion, which explains the public anger over why flooding keeps getting worse despite the cash. The gist is simple: big budgets, bad builds, and a paper trail the government now says it will chase.

Who’s involved: officials, agencies, contractors

Presumption of innocence: Everyone listed here is innocent unless proven otherwise. Status lines reflect what’s publicly reported as of today.

Public officials named in hearings and reports

Senators

Jinggoy Estrada — cited in sworn testimony as linked to alleged budget insertions and “cuts”, status: for investigation. Estrada has addressed the issue in hearings, final liability not established.
Joel Villanueva — named in testimonies regarding alleged cash deliveries tied to multipurpose and flood projects, status: for investigation. He has not been convicted of any offense.

House of Representatives

Rep. Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co — mentioned by witnesses in relation to alleged kickbacks tied to flood control works, status: denies allegations. He publicly rejected the latest claims and said he will respond in proper venues.

Former DPWH officials and witnesses

Roberto Bernardo — former DPWH undersecretary, issued fresh testimony naming sitting and former lawmakers in the flood probe, status: for investigation.
Henry Alcantara — former DPWH Bulacan district engineer, executed an affidavit detailing alleged 25–30 percent “cuts” and was brought to DOJ for evaluation, status: witness, for evaluation.
Brice Ericson Hernandez and Jaypee Mendoza — former engineers who testified that projects were overpriced or built substandard to allow kickbacks, status: admitted participation in scheme.

Law enforcement recommendation snapshot

The NBI reportedly recommended filing cases against Senators Villanueva and Estrada and Rep. Co, among others. These are recommendations, not court rulings.

Agencies and bodies

DPWH — implementing agency for flood control projects through central office and district engineering offices, now under scrutiny for project quality, bidding, and documentation.
Commission on Audit (COA) — flagged “ghost” or substandard projects and submitted fraud audit reports, can issue Notices of Disallowance and refer cases to prosecutors.
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee — leads televised hearings, subpoenas witnesses, gathers testimonies for referral to enforcement agencies.
Department of Justice (DOJ) and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) — evaluate affidavits, investigate criminal angles, and may recommend or file cases.
Office of the Ombudsman — receives audit referrals and can prosecute graft cases before the Sandiganbayan.
Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) — newly formed fact-finding commission under the Office of the President focused on flood control and related works from 2015 onward.

(Core agency sourcing via ABS-CBN reports and recent audit coverage.)

Contractors and suppliers

Running examples mentioned in audits, hearings, or coverage. This is not a final list. Status lines reflect public reporting, not guilt.

Topnotch Catalyst Builders, Inc. — Bulacan projects including riverbank or slope protection, status: subject of COA fraud audit reports forwarded to ICI.
Beam Team Developer Specialist, Inc. — part of a joint venture on Bulacan river protection packages, status: subject of COA fraud audit reports.
Syms Construction Trading — listed in COA materials tied to Angat River works, status: flagged in audit reporting.
Legacy Construction Corporation — among firms in the president’s summary of top flood control contractors by value, status: high award concentration per coverage.
Alpha & Omega General Construction — also cited in roundups of top-awarded firms since 2022, status: high award concentration per coverage.

ABS-CBN has also compiled lists showing which district engineering offices and which contractors secured a large share of projects, useful for pattern-spotting by location and award value.

Notes for readers: contractor statuses range from “named in audit” to “named in hearings” to “high award concentration.” Always check the source link and the specific project ID before drawing conclusions.

How the scheme works: from budget to kickback

The pipeline

Here is the plain-English flow from a budget line to cash out the door, with the usual choke points people are watching.

Simple step list

NEP to Congress. The executive submits the National Expenditure Program. Lawmakers review and push priorities, including flood control lines.
Bicameral insertions. During BICAM, amounts and specific “line items” get tweaked. Critics say this is where pet projects and excess allocations slip in.
DPWH programming. Central office assigns projects to district engineering offices. Scopes and timelines are set, then bid packages move.
Bidding and awards. Firms submit. Patterns like repeat winners or thin competition can show up here.
Implementation and liquidation. Contractors bill. Government processes payments. Auditors later check if works matched plans, then issue flags or Notices of Disallowance if needed.

Featured snippet: 5-step flow of funds and alleged cut points

NEP line created
BICAM adjusts amounts
Project programmed to a district
Bid awarded to a preferred firm
Billing and payment processed
Alleged “cuts” can occur at steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 based on sworn statements and news reports that cite a typical 20–30 percent take on project value.

Why this matters: televised Senate hearings featured former DPWH engineers describing a system where flood works were overpriced or built cheap so a “share” could be carved out. AP News coverage notes the same pattern and says some projects were reported as completed but never properly built, which fuels today’s flooding complaints despite huge budgets.

Where quality fails

Witnesses and reports describe three failure modes that line up with what residents see after heavy rain:

Substandard materials. Thin rebar, weak concrete mix, and rushed curing produce river walls that crack or collapse. AP News summarized multiple accounts that works were built cheaply to free up kickbacks.
Shortcut works. Portions are left unfinished or redesigned on the fly to save on cost while billing the full package. Field videos and inspections often show gaps at junctions and missing scour protection.
Ghost or paper-only projects. Structures logged as “completed” in documents but absent or far smaller on-site. That mismatch shows up later in audit findings and testimonies.

Put simply, water does not care about press releases. If river training walls crumble or never existed in the first place, runoff finds the weak point and pushes floodwater into barangays. That is why the current probe links kickbacks to real-world flood damage, not just accounting errors.

4) The money trail: alleged amounts, “cuts,” and disallowances

Big-picture figures

Flood control money is massive. For 2025 alone, DPWH flood control spending is pegged at about ₱360 billion, per budget discussions cited by the Climate Change Commission. That sits alongside a separate probe universe of about 9,800 projects worth roughly ₱545 billion that the Palace-ordered review is looking at. Those big numbers explain why the alleged “cut” matters. Sworn statements summarized at the Senate and international coverage point to a typical take of around 20 to 30 percent on project value, which matches what whistleblowers described on air.

Witnesses told senators that overpricing or corner-cutting created space for kickbacks while still passing paper checks. AP News reported that former engineers said projects were substandard or overpriced to accommodate the “share,” and that some builds were recorded as complete despite poor or missing structures. Those accounts align with local reports of audits tagging hundreds of millions of pesos in problematic works.

Quick read: reported rates and scope

Reported “take” range in testimony and coverage: 20–30 percent.
Scale of projects under review: ~9,800 projects valued at ~₱545B.
2025 flood control spending line: ~₱360B.

Notices of Disallowance and audit flags

What a Notice of Disallowance (ND) means. COA defines a disallowance as the disapproval in audit of a transaction in whole or in part. Practically, it says a payment should not have been made. The ND can trigger accountability for approving officials and a payback process, subject to appeal through COA’s hierarchy.

Recent data points. COA and newsrooms have put numbers on the table as the probe expands. COA flagged about ₱341 million in flood control works as substandard, overpriced or non-existent across several contracts, and separately filed multiple fraud audit reports on Bulacan packages with the Ombudsman and the new infrastructure commission. One Bulacan project was already served an ND in August 2025 for documentation and site issues, according to COA’s briefings carried by major outlets.

Why some anomalies slipped past in real time. At hearings, senators pressed COA on missed flags during project execution. Coverage noted a lean-manpower issue in the audit ranks, which slows field checks and deep dives while thousands of contracts keep moving. That resourcing gap is one reason performance and fraud audits now run in batches after the fact, not always during construction.

What readers should track next.

New fraud audit reports being turned over to the Independent Commission for Infrastructure and the Ombudsman.
Any additional NDs tied to specific project IDs and district engineering offices, plus how much each ND seeks to recover.
COA’s ongoing performance audit portfolio for flood programs that could widen beyond Bulacan and into other districts.

Bottom line. The alleged 20–30 percent “cut” shows up in testimony. COA’s NDs and fraud audits show the money risk on paper. The combination is exactly what pushes prosecutors to decide whether to file cases and try to claw back funds.

Contractors and projects named so far

By province or district

Bulacan (initial hotspot — more provinces to be added as cases move):

Angat River flood control structure — Pulilan (Brgy. Santo Cristo/Brgy. Taal)
Contract value: ~₱92.9 million • Year: 2023–2024 window per COA timeline • Contractor: SYMS Construction Trading
What reports/witnesses said: Flagged as problematic in COA fraud audit; issues include documentation and site discrepancies.
Current action: COA fraud audit report submitted to ICI/Ombudsman for case build-up; under probe. Status: for probe.
Riverbank Protection Structure (Package A) — Plaridel (Brgy. Bulihan, Sitio Dulo)
Contract value: ~₱69.5 million • Year: 2023–2024 • Contractor: Topnotch Catalyst Builders, Inc.
What reports/witnesses said: COA cites mismatches and red flags in works vs. billing; named in multiple rundowns of Bulacan packages.
Current action: Fraud audit submitted to ICI; under probe. Status: for probe.
Slope/river protection — Bocaue River (Brgy. Bambang)
Contract value: ~₱74.3 million (local posting) • Year: 2023–2024 • Contractor: Often linked in coverage to Topnotch and related JV packages
What reports/witnesses said: Listed among Bocaue river protection builds with cost disclosures; part of cluster scrutiny in COA and media.
Current action: Materials surfaced alongside Bulacan fraud audit sets; tracking for formal COA actions. Status: for probe.
Slope protection — Bocaue River (Brgy. Turo)
Contract value: ~₱98.99 million • Year: 2023–2024 • Contractor: Topnotch Catalyst Builders, Inc. in joint venture (reports reference Topnotch with One Frame/Beam Team in Bocaue packages)
What reports/witnesses said: Cited in news rundowns of high-value Bocaue works now under scrutiny for quality and bidding patterns.
Current action: Tied to broader Bulacan fraud audits and Senate inquiries; watch for ND or case updates. Status: for probe.
Additional Bulacan packages — JV sets (Topnotch + partner) on slope protection/waterways
Contract values: within the ₱300-plus million cluster flagged by COA across four Bulacan projects • Year: 2023–2024
Contractors: Topnotch Catalyst Builders, Inc. + partner JVs; SYMS Construction Trading on solo package(s)
What reports/witnesses said: COA and media list four Bulacan projects covered by fraud audit reports; issues include “ghost” or mismatched accomplishments.
Current action: Fraud audit reports filed with ICI and Ombudsman; Senate tracking contractors that skipped hearings via subpoena. Status: for probe.

Context note: These Bulacan entries are the most concrete so far because COA publicly confirmed fraud audit filings and specific project titles and amounts. Expect this list to expand to other districts as more audits and subpoenas land.

Example entries

Use this template when you add new items from other provinces or when fresh COA/Senate docs drop:

Template row (fill per project):

Project ID: e.g., 24CS00XX
Barangay/City: e.g., Brgy. Taal, Pulilan, Bulacan
Contract value: e.g., ₱92,880,000
Contractor: e.g., SYMS Construction Trading
Source doc link: news or COA post
Status tag: for probe | charged recommended | denies | suspended

ABS-CBN has running lists that help cross-reference top-awarded contractors and which district engineering offices saw concentrated awards — handy for spotting patterns before the formal audit notes arrive.

Sources for this section: GMA Integrated News for affidavit and COA amount breakdowns; ABS-CBN for contractor lists and subpoena actions; Inquirer/Philstar for specific peso amounts and audit details tied to Bulacan projects.

Government response, probes, and cases filed

Senate actions

Key hearing dates and who’s running the show. The Blue Ribbon committee resumed hearings on Sep 18, 2025, continued on Sep 23, and again on Sep 25 with wall-to-wall coverage. The panel is now chaired by Sen. Panfilo Lacson, per Senate leadership changes reported this month.
Subpoenas and contempt. Early in the inquiry the Senate issued a subpoena duces tecum for COA’s fraud audit files, then followed up with subpoenas to five contractors and three DPWH officials who were no-shows. Some contractors were later cited for contempt when they still failed to appear.
Witnesses on record. Recent hearings featured ex-DPWH Bulacan district engineer Henry Alcantara and two former engineers who described overpricing, cash deliveries, and substandard builds. Inquirer’s live updates also noted appearances by couriers tied to alleged cash drops.

What to watch next: additional subpoenas for firm owners who skipped hearings, the committee’s referral report naming agencies for prosecution, and any move to expand the probe beyond Bulacan.

Executive and audit bodies

DOJ and NBI case build-up. The NBI has endorsed the filing of criminal cases against several public officials and private actors based on its initial fieldwork and sworn statements. These recommendations go to the DOJ for evaluation and possible complaints before the Ombudsman or regular courts.
COA fraud audit submissions to the new commission. COA filed four fraud audit reports on Bulacan flood projects with the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), the Palace-created fact-finding body tasked to consolidate evidence across agencies. More cases are being prepared, according to COA briefings carried by Inquirer.
DPWH internal checks. DPWH told reporters it would release initial findings from its own review, in coordination with the Senate and audit bodies. Expect administrative actions like preventive suspensions if internal probes confirm violations.

What to watch next: additional COA fraud audit reports forwarded to ICI and the Ombudsman, plus DOJ resolutions on the first batch of NBI recommendations.

Charges on deck

Who and what offenses. Multiple Inquirer reports say the NBI recommended filing criminal raps against Sen. Joel Villanueva, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, Rep. Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co, and others, citing alleged violations that include bribery, malversation and related anti-corruption statutes. These are recommendations only, not court findings. The DOJ will decide which charges to file and against whom.
Status and next stops. Recommended cases typically move to DOJ preliminary investigation or Ombudsman evaluation. If prosecutors find probable cause, expect formal complaints and possible motions for preventive suspension for officials still in office.

Keep it neutral and precise: all individuals named remain presumed innocent unless a court rules otherwise. Our section tracks public actions by state bodies and will be updated as resolutions, NDs, and case dockets become public.

How to verify claims yourself

Receipts or nothing

You don’t need inside access — just patience, Google, and a few official portals. Here’s the exact playbook I use so you can check projects, pesos, and paperwork on your own.

Step 1: Pull COA definitions and decisions

Start by knowing what a Notice of Disallowance (ND) means in plain terms. COA’s own FAQ defines disallowance as an audit disapproval of a payment, in whole or in part. That’s your baseline for “the government wants this money back.”
Then see how to request documents and what’s public — including how COA handles final decisions and orders of execution. This tells you when an ND is final and collectible.

Step 2: Check PhilGEPS

Use PhilGEPS Award Notices to see who actually won the contract and for how much. You can keyword-search by project name, barangay, or district engineering office. Screenshot and save the award page.
If you need the recent awards list to spot patterns across a contractor, start here and refine.

Step 3: Cross-check DPWH procurement pages

DPWH posts bid bulletins and notices of award on its site. Match package IDs and dates against what you found on PhilGEPS. If there’s a mismatch, note it.
Some DPWH regional offices stream pre-bid and bid openings on YouTube — handy receipts if a firm “keeps winning” with thin competition.

Step 4: Verify on the ground (digitally first)

Grab LGU council minutes or resolutions that mention right-of-way, site changes, or counterpart funding. When not posted, file an eFOI request; it’s the official channel to ask for contracts, plans, or inspection reports.
FOI manuals spell out the process and appeal path if your request stalls. Use them.

Step 5: Watch the hearings and compare testimony

Use a reliable livestream with replay. Inquirer carries the Blue Ribbon stream and live updates — perfect for pausing and noting names, dates, and amounts exactly as said.

Step 6: Build a simple receipts folder

For each project: save the PhilGEPS award page, DPWH notice, any COA memo/ND, FOI replies, and your hearing timestamps. One folder per project keeps you sane when stories change.

Quick checklist (print this):

Project ID matches across PhilGEPS and DPWH
Award amount equals what’s cited in media or hearings
Site and scope on paper match the satellite view and LGU minutes
Any ND or audit flag exists, with date and amount
Hearing quotes timestamped from a verified livestream

Reading sworn statements

Affidavits are not vibes — they’re formal. When you open one, scan it like a clerk.

Names and titles: Full legal names, positions, and agencies. If a nickname appears in news, confirm the legal name in the affidavit body.
Dates and places: Look for exact dates, venues of meetings or deliveries, and when projects were bid or paid. Line these up with PhilGEPS award dates and DPWH notices.
Control numbers and attachments: Check for annex labels, page counts, photos, maps, bank slips, or hotel receipts. Control numbers and notary details should be complete.
Internal consistency: Do amounts add up across sections Does the same person hold the same role throughout
Corroboration: One affidavit is a start. Match it against COA flags, ND numbers, and hearing transcripts.

For reference, GMA Integrated News posted Henry Alcantara’s sworn statement connected to the Bulacan flood packages — a useful example of how specifics are laid out in full. Use it to train your eye for details.

Cross-check with media summaries while you wait on FOI

While FOI requests are processing, compare your notes to Inquirer’s live coverage and recap posts to ensure you didn’t miss a name or figure stated on record. Treat media as pointers, not final proof.

Bottom line: screenshots, file copies, and exact timestamps will keep your thread clean and your claims defensible. If it’s not in a document, a docket, a bid page, a livestream, or an ND — it’s not a receipt.

Risks, red flags, and citizen tips

Signs a project is fishy

Spotting problems early saves lives and pesos. When you pass a site tagged as “flood control,” watch for these patterns that often appear in flood control corruption Philippines stories and DPWH corruption discussions:

Repeated change orders that inflate costs without clear technical need. If every visit shows a “revised scope,” that is a clue.
Same-day bidding rituals where the invitation, opening, and award feel rushed. Healthy competitions take time and attract more bidders.
Thin bidder pools with one or two familiar names winning again and again. Real competition usually means more sealed bids.
End-of-year “emergency” clusters that cram multiple packages into December. Flood control is long-term work, not a holiday sale.
Mismatch between drawings and actual works like shorter walls, thinner riprap, or missing scour protection versus the plan.
Cookie-cutter billings where progress reports copy-paste the same photos or quantities for different barangays.
Paper trail lag where PhilGEPS, DPWH notices, and onsite signage list different contract values or timelines.
Quick crumble after the first heavy rain. Structures that fail fast hint at substandard materials or skipped steps.

If two or more of these show up on one job, document it. Then verify with public records before you post or file a report.

Fast checklist you can keep on your phone

Take clear photos of the project billboard, ongoing works, and GPS location
Note dates, contractor name, package ID, and supervising office
Compare to PhilGEPS or DPWH pages later for consistency
Ask neighbors what they saw during construction, then log only verifiable info

How to report safely

You want accountability without putting yourself or innocent workers at risk. Use a calm, methodical process that respects COA Notice of Disallowance pathways and anti-graft rules.

Confirm the basics
- Match project name, package ID, barangay, and contractor across PhilGEPS and DPWH notices. Save screenshots with timestamps.
- If something does not match, list the exact fields that differ. Avoid conclusions. Just the facts.
Record evidence properly
- Photos or short videos in daylight, wide-to-close sequence, and a shot of the project billboard.
- Note measurements with a simple tape or reference object. Do not trespass. Stay on public roads.
- Keep a simple log: date, time, what you saw, who you spoke to. Store files in a cloud folder.
Write a short, factual summary
- One paragraph only: what the paper says, what the site shows, and where they differ.
- Include project ID, location, amount, and the exact lines that conflict. This speeds up audits.
Send to the right channels
- COA regional office for audit concerns that may lead to an ND
- Ombudsman for possible graft or bribery
- DPWH central or regional office for quality and contract enforcement
- 8888 Citizens’ Complaint Center for routing when you are unsure
- eFOI if you need copies of plans, inspections, or progress billings to back your claim
Protect yourself and others
- Remove faces and plate numbers from public posts. Blur kids and private homes.
- Do not post names of rank-and-file workers. Focus on documents, not rumors.
- Use a pseudonym on social media if you plan to discuss ongoing issues. Keep originals offline.
Follow up without spamming
- After two weeks, send a polite follow-up that includes your reference number.
- If a reply cites “ongoing evaluation,” log the date and wait for the next official update.
Share responsibly
- If you post, stick to verifiable items: contract value, project ID, timeline, and your photos.
- Avoid labeling anyone “corrupt” unless a decision exists. Say “flagged,” “for probe,” or “per COA finding.” This keeps your thread clean and useful.

Bottom line: precise notes, clean photos, and correct routing make your report useful to investigators. Keep emotion out, keep receipts in.

FAQs

Are the named officials already charged or only recommended for prosecution?
As of now, the NBI has recommended filing criminal cases (e.g., indirect bribery, malversation) against some officials, including Sens. Joel Villanueva and Jinggoy Estrada and Rep. Zaldy Co. These are recommendations, not filed cases or convictions; the DOJ still decides whether to file.

What happens after a Notice of Disallowance (ND)?
An ND is COA’s disapproval in audit of a payment in whole or in part. The party can appeal up the COA hierarchy. If an ND becomes final, those held liable may be required to return the amount. Inquirer’s reporting also tracks the scope — COA said it issued 1,985 NDs vs DPWH over the past decade.

Can funds be clawed back?
Yes. Once an ND becomes final and executory, COA can enforce refund/collection from liable officials or payees, subject to appeals and defenses recognized by COA and the courts. Inquirer coverage notes that the existence of an ND means the amount remains subject to recovery unless reversed.

Why didn’t COA catch this earlier?
Two reasons repeatedly surface in hearings and coverage:

No pre-audit on many transactions — lawmakers have urged COA to consider reviving pre-audit to stop bad payments before release. 2) Capacity constraints — COA handles thousands of projects, which pushes many checks to post-audit, not real time. Inquirer has additionally reported COA warnings dating back to 2017 about ghost flood projects.

Where can I watch the next hearing live?
Inquirer runs live updates and embeds the livestream when the Blue Ribbon holds sessions. Bookmark their live page for the latest schedule and video.

Timeline tracker

Key dates

Sep 18, 2025 — COA fraud audit tags 4 more Bulacan flood projects. Satellite imagery and field checks cited; files prepped for case build-up.
Sep 21, 2025 — Mass protests and clashes near Malacañang tied to flood-control scandal. Police report dozens arrested; outrage over 9,800 projects under review worth ~₱545B.
Sep 22, 2025 — ICI flags alleged document tampering/destruction. The independent commission says DPWH personnel were “destroying” or altering project records; requests preservation.
Sep 23, 2025 — Senate hears ex-engineers on kickbacks and substandard builds. AP recap: testimonies describe 20–30 percent “take,” ghost or junk projects in Bulacan since 2019.
Sep 25, 2025 — Senate Blue Ribbon hearing resumes; livestream and live updates. Committee chaired by Sen. Panfilo Lacson; subpoenas, witness Q&A continue.
Sep 24–25, 2025 — DPWH secretary alerts AMLC/DOJ/ICI on alleged “air assets.” Vince Dizon tells agencies about planes and helicopters linked to Rep. Zaldy Co; referral made for probe.
Sep 26, 2025 — COA files 4 fraud audit reports with ICI on Bulacan packages. COA describes site mismatches and redirects; cases formally handed to the commission.
Late Sep 2025 — Marcos backs public anger but calls for peaceful protests. Palace reiterates support for probes into 9,800 flood-control projects worth ~₱545B.

What to watch next

ICI docket updates — which cases get elevated to the Ombudsman and DOJ for filing. (Inquirer.net)
Any preventive suspensions or administrative orders from DPWH tied to named district offices. (Inquirer.net)
The Senate panel’s committee report and recommendations after the late-September hearings, plus schedules for the next session via Inquirer’s live page. (Inquirer.net)