EDITORIAL: Quality Matters

THE unusually candid exchange between Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla and DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon has exposed a problem that goes beyond one poorly designed building or a delayed government project: the persistent question of whether the government is getting the quality it deserves for billions of pesos in public funds.

Remulla’s criticism was blunt. He questioned why some government buildings appear to take years to complete, why their designs fall short of expectations, and why structures available from the private sector can sometimes offer better quality at a lower cost. His remarks may be uncomfortable, but they deserve serious attention.

The reported problems involving the Bureau of Immigration building, the proposed National Bureau of Investigation headquarters and other infrastructure projects cannot simply be dismissed as isolated shortcomings. Every defective design, unnecessary delay or poorly executed project ultimately carries a cost to taxpayers—and, more importantly, affects the government's ability to deliver effective public services.

That is why Dizon’s response is significant.

Instead of reflexively defending the agency, the DPWH chief agreed that public-private partnerships may be the better option for large and complex infrastructure projects where they can ensure better quality, efficiency and accountability. More importantly, he acknowledged the need to reform the department’s internal systems and culture.

This is precisely where the discussion should lead.

PPP should not, however, become an excuse for government to abandon its responsibility to build its own capacity. The private sector can provide expertise, efficiency and innovation, but government must retain the ability to set standards, scrutinize designs, monitor construction and hold contractors and officials accountable.

The issue, therefore, is not simply whether a project is undertaken by the DPWH or through a PPP. The real question is whether the public gets value for money.

A government building funded with billions of pesos should not merely be completed. It should be functional, durable, safe, accessible and appropriate to the needs of the people who will use it. A driveway that cannot comfortably accommodate ordinary vehicles, as Dizon himself reportedly observed, should never have passed through the government’s planning and approval process in the first place.

This points to a larger institutional problem: accountability must begin before construction, not after a defective structure has already consumed public money.

Government agencies need stronger design review, transparent procurement, independent quality control and meaningful monitoring at every stage of implementation. Officials responsible for approving substandard plans should be answerable. Contractors who fail to meet specifications should face appropriate sanctions. And projects that are clearly no longer viable should be reassessed before more public money is poured into them.

Remulla’s suggestion of acquiring existing private buildings instead of constructing new ones may sound radical, but it raises a legitimate question: Why build from scratch if government can acquire or lease an existing facility that is cheaper, faster and demonstrably better?

Government should be pragmatic enough to consider such alternatives.

At the same time, the answer cannot simply be to buy everything from the private sector. If government continuously concludes that it cannot deliver quality infrastructure on its own, then the deeper problem is institutional capacity—and that must be fixed.

The billions spent on public infrastructure should leave behind more than concrete and steel. They should leave behind confidence that government can plan properly, spend wisely and deliver what it promised.

The Ombudsman’s criticism and the DPWH chief’s willingness to confront it offer an opportunity for reform. The challenge now is to turn strong words into measurable changes in the way government plans, procures, builds and evaluates its projects.

For taxpayers, the standard should be simple: public money must produce public value.

Anything less should no longer be acceptable.