EDITORIAL: Contractor Control?

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s recent disclosure that nearly P100 billion worth of flood control contracts over the past three years have been cornered by just 15 contractors is as troubling as it is revealing.

In a country where typhoons and heavy rains routinely submerge towns, destroy homes, and displace thousands, the integrity of flood control programs is not a minor matter—it is a matter of public safety, disaster preparedness, and trust in governance.

According to the president, out of 2,409 registered contracting entities in recent years, only this small group managed to secure the lion’s share of the largest and most expensive flood control projects.

Some of these companies were reportedly awarded contracts in almost every part of the country. While Mr. Marcos stopped short of accusing anyone of wrongdoing, his own words—“these are the ones that immediately popped out”—make clear his discomfort with such a concentration of government infrastructure spending in so few hands.

At best, this pattern suggests an unhealthy imbalance in public procurement. At worst, it raises the specter of systemic favoritism, possible bid rigging, and collusion. In either case, the implications for governance are serious.

Flood control projects are not just another line item in the budget—they are lifelines for communities that face annual inundation. The diversion or mismanagement of these resources could translate to unnecessary suffering, avoidable damage, and even loss of life.

The president’s observation, rooted in his own experience as governor of Ilocos Norte, also points to a fundamental principle often overlooked in infrastructure policy: the value of empowering local contractors. Localizing smaller projects not only spreads economic opportunities within communities but also fosters better accountability.

Local contractors tend to be more accessible to residents and local officials, making it easier to demand timely completion and quality work. Conversely, awarding sprawling, multi-regional contracts to just 15 major players can make oversight diffuse and unwieldy, weakening the very safeguards meant to prevent abuse.

This is why the ongoing investigation into nearly 10,000 flood control projects must go beyond identifying statistical anomalies. It must examine the procurement process from top to bottom—who approves the projects, how bidding is conducted, what qualifications are weighed, and whether political connections or corporate networks have been allowed to undermine fair competition.

Transparency should be paramount: the public has the right to know not only which companies have benefited from this arrangement, but also the reasons behind the awarding of their contracts.

The Commission on Audit, the Department of Public Works and Highways, and Congress all have a role to play here. The findings cannot be buried in technical reports or sealed in committee hearings. They must be brought to light in a way that ordinary Filipinos can understand—because ultimately, these projects are funded by taxpayers and meant to serve communities vulnerable to floods, not the balance sheets of a privileged few.

In infrastructure development, fairness in awarding contracts is not a mere procedural nicety—it is the foundation of public trust. A procurement system that consistently favors a small circle of contractors is a system that risks breeding inefficiency, corruption, and public cynicism.

The Marcos administration has an opportunity, perhaps even an obligation, to break that cycle and restore confidence in how big-ticket projects are awarded and implemented.

Flood control is not simply about pouring concrete into riverbanks or erecting dikes along waterways. It is about safeguarding lives and livelihoods, ensuring that public funds translate into real protection against the forces of nature. To allow this crucial work to be dominated by just 15 contractors without exhaustive scrutiny is to gamble with both public safety and public trust.

The investigation must proceed rigorously, free of political shielding and corporate influence. And if wrongdoing is found, the response should be swift, decisive, and exemplary. The country cannot afford to have flood control projects that protect profits more than people.