PACC Uncovers Major Irregularities in DPWH’s Reported 100% Completed Flood Control Project in Malita, Davao Occidental

PACC Uncovers Major Irregularities in DPWH’s Reported 100% Completed Flood Control Project in Malita, Davao Occidental

Malita, Davao Occidental — The Philippine Anti-Corruption Czar (PACC), led by Chairman Dr. Louie F. Ceniza, PhD,
has uncovered significant structural inconsistencies, misreporting, and strong indicators of possible fraud in a DPWH project declared
“100% completed” on .

The project, ID 24LE0017 — Construction of Concrete Revetment for Demoloc Flood Control,
carries a total contract cost of ₱116.5 million under the 2024 GAA Regular Infrastructure Program.

The investigation team was composed of PACC Chairman Ceniza, Board of Trustees Member Dr. Allan Japor, PhD,
Pastor Richie Cubos, Technical Team Members Engr. Dominador Miolata and Solomon Rufila,
with full operational support from the PNP Regional Mobile Force Battalion and the Provincial Mobile Force Company.

DPWH Claims 100% Completion — But Ground Inspection Reveals the Opposite

Despite the DPWH Davao Occidental DEO’s reported “100% completed” status at the Project and Contract Management Application (PCMA),
the PACC’s extensive ocular inspection revealed glaring discrepancies:

  • Major structural components required for flood control were missing
  • Large segments were not constructed according to engineering standards
  • Construction activity appeared to have begun a year after the declared completion date

“The physical condition of the project is grossly inconsistent with DPWH’s completion report.
What we saw on the ground does not resemble a completed flood control structure in any form.”

— Chairman Dr. Louie F. Ceniza, PhD

Key Findings From the PACC Technical Team

1) Missing Critical Engineering Structures

Several essential components of standard flood control construction were absent, including:

  • Driven steel sheet piles
  • Proper toe protection
  • Rubble concrete foundation
  • Hand-laid rock embankment
  • Slope protection layers
  • PVC-coated mattresses (0.30m x 2m x 6m)

These omissions severely undermine the structural integrity of the revetment and raise questions regarding the proper use of project funds.

2) Cosmetic or Superficial Construction

One of the most alarming discoveries was an alleged attempt to simulate a completed structure:
soil was dumped along the riverbank and merely covered with a thin layer of cement, creating the illusion of a concrete revetment.

This deceptive practice is:

  • Structurally unsound
  • A clear breach of engineering protocols
  • A direct hazard to the safety of nearby communities

3) Exposed Rebars and Unfinished Concrete

Multiple inspected areas exhibited:

  • Exposed and rusting reinforcement bars
  • Partially cast concrete with improper curing
  • Un-compacted and loose backfill
  • Disorganized construction debris and abandoned formwork

These characteristics contradict the DPWH’s certification of project completion and reveal inadequate workmanship.

4) Troubling Observation: Lack of Engineers and Technical Personnel on Project Site

During interviews and on-site checks, workers consistently provided the same answers across multiple DPWH and contractor-operated projects
inspected by PACC.

Common On-Site Questions and Observations

  1. “Is your contractor’s engineer present on site?” Workers answered: No engineer.
  2. “Did any DPWH supervising engineers visit or inspect the works?” Workers answered: Never seen the DPWH engineer.
  3. “Does your foreman or engineer provide technical instructions at the start of daily activities?” Workers answered: No sir, no briefing, no instructions.

The absence of engineers from both contractor and DPWH leads to:

  1. Substandard output of works
  2. Improper and substandard implementation of materials
  3. Poor workmanship and unacceptable finish

This resulted in:

  • Misaligned surfaces
  • Uneven curvature
  • Non-uniform wall thickness
  • Visibly defective construction execution

“Had skilled technical personnel been present, these anomalies, defects, and structural deviations could have been prevented.
Taxpayers deserve projects built by qualified professionals—not rushed or unsupervised workmanship.”

— Chairman Dr. Louie F. Ceniza, PhD

Residents and local community observers confirmed that visible construction activities only began 1 year after
the DPWH’s October 2024 completion declaration.

This indicates potential:

  • Misreporting
  • Document falsification
  • Ghost project characteristics

Recommended Actions and Endorsements

The PACC has formally endorsed the following actions to the Independent Commission on Infrastructure (ICI) and DPWH Secretary
Vince Dizon:

  • Immediate technical audit of all flood control projects in Davao Occidental
  • Cease-and-desist order for acceptance of similar questionable projects
  • Suspension and investigation of DPWH personnel who signed the 100% completion reports
  • Blacklisting of the contractor, SCP Construction, pending the outcome of investigations
  • Administrative and criminal charges if fraudulent reporting is confirmed
  • Full rectification of all defective works at no cost to the government

The PACC warns that the current structure poses serious risks, including erosion, structural collapse, damage to riverside communities,
and potential loss of life during heavy rains.

In Support of the Philippine Government Anti-Corruption and Infrastructure Integrity Directive

This investigation aligns with President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.’s nationwide directive to eradicate:

  • Ghost projects
  • Substandard infrastructure
  • Abandoned or fake flood control works
  • Corruption within implementing government agencies

“We will not allow public funds to be wasted, nor will we allow communities to be endangered because of substandard or ghost projects.
PACC will continue to safeguard every peso intended for national development.”

— Chairman Dr. Louie F. Ceniza, PhD