P500-M scandal rocks Bulacan river dredging project

BAGUIO CITY—  A corruption scandal erupted in Bulacan province after a graft suit was filed against Bulacan Gov. Daniel Fernando, Vice Gov. Alex Castro, other officials, and a private contractor before the Ombudsman over the P500 million Bulacan Flood Control and River Restoration Project.

In a three-page complaint dated May 1, 2024 reaching the Office of the Ombudsman on May 6, 2024 by a whistleblower named “Francisco Balagtas”, Bulacan’s famed poet’s namesake, it said that a thorough investigation is being sought into the alleged conspiracy between the governor, other officials and private contractor TCSC Corporation’s owners and corporate officers Dionesio Toreja, President, Engr. Bernie Pacheco, Vice President for Mining and others.   

"(There were) acts of corruption and violations of anti-graft laws in the implementation of the Bulacan flood control project under the auspices of (Gov. Fernando, Vice Gov. Castro, and others in conspiracy with TCSC Corporation owners and corporate officers," Balagtas said in his complaint. 

Fernando, other officials and officials of the TCSC Corporation, who have yet to issue their reaction to the complaint, have allegedly violated numerous legal statutes and regulation. These included the provincial officials’ favoring the TCSC to undertake Bulacan dredging projects. 

The complainant also claimed that the private contractor was not duly selected according to government procurement processes but was favored to obtain the project.

“(These actions) have cast a shadow over the integrity and transparency of the public procurement processes associated with the aforementioned project,” Balagtas said.

The complainant accused Fernando, Castro and all other public officials of potentially breaching Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 30 19, more commonly known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which states that "(e) causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.”

"The governor may have granted unwarranted benefits or advantages to TCSC without adhering to the requisite fair and competitive selection process and procedures mandated by law," Balagtas said.

"There was no publication to invite participants to the project (if this is a solicited one) or no selection or Swiss challenged was done (if this is an unsolicited proposal) giving rise to suspicions and raise grave concerns regarding the specter of favoritism and corruption within the administrative corridors of the Bulacan provincial government," the complainant furthered. 

Balagtas also said that the Bulacan Project "is in contrast with the river dredging initiative undertaken by San Miguel Corporation (SMC), which stands as a stark example of transparency and accountability. SMC's project operates at no cost to the government and without financial gain for the corporation, highlighting the disparities and potential irregularities in the Bulacan River Restoration Project.”

 "There exists compelling evidence indicating possible violations Of Department of Public Works and Highways Department Order No. 139, Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1 series of 2019 and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order 2020-07," the complainant cited.

These regulatory frameworks, "delineate explicit guidelines governing environmental projects and public-private partnerships, underscoring the paramount importance of transparency, accountability, and fidelity to prescribed procurement protocols," he also cited.

Balagtas further cited in his complaint that, "serious ethical quandaries emerge from the suspicion that the flood control project may harbor political motivations, with Governor Fernando and cohorts allegedly exploiting it as a strategic gambit in anticipation of forthcoming electoral contests,”  believing that,  “(it) raises profound ethical questions concerning the potential misuse of public resources for personal or political gain, rather than the earnest fulfillment of the public interest considering that they stand to receive financial share from the commercial disposition of the dredged or extracted materials."