FROM FLOOD CONTROL TO RECLAMATION: THE TAGUIG CASE LACSON IS BUILDING

Senator Ping Lacson started with ghost flood-control projects in Taguig. I expected the argument to stay on one question: were the projects really there?

The disclosures soon grew into something wider. Lacson alleged duplicate appropriations, repeated billing photographs, overlapping construction, kickbacks, reclamation inside Laguna de Bay, and titles over property that may have been created from the lake.

Before I could make sense of it, I had to separate the records from the accusations. Government files confirm budget and procurement records, regulators have raised permit and reclamation concerns, Lacson's accusations of kickbacks and political control remain unresolved, and Alan Peter Cayetano denies wrongdoing.

THE PROJECTS EXIST ON PAPER

Lacson attributes around P6.795 billion in Taguig infrastructure items in the 2025 national budget to Alan Cayetano. He said 68 of 70 projects were implemented and around P6.715 billion had been spent, while two smaller items remained unreleased or unobligated.

Those figures describe the group of projects Lacson is questioning. They do not calculate how much money, if any, was lost to fraud.

The later P14.4 billion figure covers the approximate value of Taguig infrastructure projects from 2020 to 2025 examined by Lacson's team. The available evidence does not support reporting P14.4 billion as money already found missing or stolen.

I checked the 2025 General Appropriations Act, a PhilGEPS procurement notice, and several DPWH award and notice-to-proceed records. Together, they confirm that a number of the questioned projects were appropriated or entered the procurement process.

One DPWH notice covers a flood-mitigation structure along Laguna Lakeshore in Lower Bicutan for P94,047,204.22. Another covers the rehabilitation of flood-mitigation structures in Taguig, Phase 5, for P141,854,617.45.

PhilGEPS also published Taguig projects with approved budgets close to P96.5 million each. They included Laguna Lakeshore Package 9, Taguig River Lakeshore Area Phases 2 and 3, the C6 Open Channel in Napindan, and Conga Creek Phase 3.

Paper existence answers the first question. It shows that public money was budgeted and contracts were awarded, while the billing records and engineering files must show whether each appropriation bought separate work at the stated place and length.

That is the practical concern for taxpayers. If two contracts cover the same stretch, the public may have paid again for protection it was supposed to receive the first time, leaving less money for other flood-prone communities.

WHAT LACSON SAYS HAPPENED TO THE BILLINGS

Lacson first described two cases. One involved projects with different appropriations, descriptions, locations, and contractors that allegedly used the same photograph to support billing.

The other involved one slope-protection project with the same location and description that allegedly received two appropriations. Lacson says both were billed and paid.

More examples followed in early August. He said four completed and fully paid slope-protection projects handled by four contractors used the same geotagged photographs.

GMA reported his claim that two progress-billing reports contained identical images even though one was dated March 31, 2025, and the other June 16, 2025. Lacson also alleged that photographs from previously completed contracts were recycled after dates or project details were changed.

Lacson submitted the allegations to the Office of the Ombudsman. The complete billing packets and original image files have not been released for public examination.

On August 7, he said his count had reached 32 projects he considered grossly anomalous. That is Lacson's count of questioned projects, and the public record does not establish 32 ghost projects.

Using one photograph for separate billings would mean at least one record was unreliable, and it would show that inspection and payment controls failed to catch it. The original photographs, billings, and payment documents are needed to decide whether taxpayers paid for the work honestly.

Lacson also says slope-protection projects along the Taguig River overlap. Several carry budgets close to P100 million, although similar amounts alone do not establish that the same span was funded twice.

The programs of work, engineering plans, exact station limits, quantity calculations, inspection records, and as-built surveys can settle that question. Without them, residents cannot tell whether a later contract extended an earlier wall or charged them again for the same work.

Lacson's most explosive accusation is an alleged kickback system reaching 33 percent of a project's cost. His public breakdown was 10 percent for a principal, 2 percent for the principal's "boys," 6 percent connected to the Bids and Awards Committee system, and 15 percent that he linked to earlier testimony involving former DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan.

Those components came from different allegations and sources. They have not been audited as deductions from every Taguig project.

Lacson further alleges that favored contractors were selected in advance, some contracts were transferred to another builder for a royalty, and local intermediaries acted as bagmen. He says district engineers could be pressured, replaced, or intimidated if they refused to cooperate.

The contract records identify the formal winners. Proof of contract trading or political control would require bank records, messages, sworn testimony, disbursement documents, and a connection between each person and a transaction.

If the kickback claim is established, less of every affected budget reached the work meant to keep water away from homes. For now, it remains Lacson's accusation against identifiable people and businesses.

WHEN FLOOD CONTROL BECAME A RECLAMATION QUESTION

This part has support beyond Lacson's files. In July 2025, the Philippine Reclamation Authority issued a formal directive stating that no reclamation project within Laguna de Bay had been approved and ordered all unauthorized reclamation activities in and around the lake to stop.

At a Senate budget hearing in October 2025, DENR Undersecretary Carlos Primo David said satellite images showed a project along C6 labeled as flood control that appeared to be reclamation inside Laguna de Bay. He warned that poorly placed projects could worsen flooding instead of reducing it.

In August 2026, Laguna Lake Development Authority General Manager Leopoldo Parumog said the Taguig city government had not coordinated with LLDA on the projects under examination. He said public consultation and the necessary certificates were required before construction in the area.

PRA General Manager Joseph Literal said his agency had sought documents from Taguig since the last quarter of 2025. According to Literal, PRA began its own inquiry before Lacson's latest disclosures after receiving complaints involving reclamation and garbage.

Those statements turn the issue into a direct concern for people who live with floods. Construction presented as protection could add to the danger if it fills part of the lake and reduces space for water, which is the risk David raised.

The project trail includes a P94-million flood-mitigation structure in Lower Bicutan, a lakeshore-improvement project reported at about P94.07 million, a P49.9-million multipurpose building at the Lakeshore Complex, and two flood-mitigation rehabilitation phases costing around P141.85 million each. Their project records do not establish that every structure illegally filled part of the lake, though they identify where boundaries, approvals, and completed work need to be matched.

Executive Order No. 74 places reclamation projects initiated by local governments under the PRA approval process. LLDA has a separate clearance system for development within the Laguna de Bay region.

Public ownership does not remove those approval processes. Without the required clearances, residents have no official assurance that the effect on flooding and the authority to occupy part of the lake were reviewed before public money was spent.

The size of the area remains unsettled. Lacson first discussed roughly 84 hectares and later cited findings of at least 85 hectares under scrutiny, while Literal described more than 40 hectares flagged at an earlier point in PRA's inquiry.

Those figures may reflect different inspection dates or portions of a growing area. Lacson says the work covers eight sites, one completed and seven ongoing, with some activity dating as far back as 2007.

If flood-control spending helped create usable property from the lake, another question follows: who owns that property, and who receives the benefit?

THE TITLES NOW BEING TRACED

On August 28 and 29, Lacson said the Land Registration Authority was tracing the origin and history of titles covering about 38.83 hectares within the flagged areas. He described four parcels totaling 388,308 square meters, or 38.8308 hectares.

One parcel covers 9,204 square meters under an original certificate of title arising from an administrative patent. Another covers 5,000 square meters under an original certificate of title processed through judicial or ordinary registration.

A third covers 181,077 square meters under a transfer certificate of title that allegedly originated from a homestead patent. The fourth covers 193,027 square meters under another transfer certificate of title.

Lacson also said at least four other parcels had no corresponding plotted titled lots in the LRA's digital records. He withheld the owners' names and title numbers while the inquiry continued.

Lacson called the four titles fraudulent. No public finding from the LRA or a court has established that description.

As of August 29, no title history, patent record, survey plan, registration decree, named owner, cancellation case, or final fraud finding had been released. The 38.83 hectares connected to the title review must also be kept separate from the broader estimate of at least 85 hectares of reclaimed area under scrutiny.

A title can decide who claims ownership, use, or transfer of property formed at the lake's edge. If an area created with public money later appears under a private name, taxpayers need the paper trail that explains it, and the withheld names leave that question unanswered.

WHAT CAYETANO DISPUTES

Alan Cayetano denies wrongdoing. He says that, to the best of his knowledge, there are no ghost flood-control projects in Taguig, and he has invited Lacson and the public to inspect them.

Cayetano says the lakeshore areas are government-owned and were developed into public parks and facilities rather than reclaimed for private use. He says the development crossed the Aquino, Duterte, and Marcos administrations and was intended to protect the lake and the public.

He has called the accusations hearsay, partisan retaliation, and a smear connected to political ambition. He argues that any inquiry should be fair and should examine similar projects elsewhere in the country.

His invitation to inspect can show whether structures are physically present. A visible structure still leaves the billing, project-boundary, permit, and ownership questions unresolved.

Lacson also alleges that PRA officials were pressured or harassed during the Office of the President's budget deliberations in November 2025 and that field investigators encountered intimidation along C6. Literal gave The Philippine Star a materially different account, saying no senator ordered PRA to stop and its inquiry was independent.

Literal's statement directly disputes the idea that a senator successfully halted PRA's work. It does not resolve every detail of Lacson's pressure allegation.

Pia Cayetano belongs in a separate part of the record. Lacson attributed around P4.7 billion in 2025 budget insertions to her, then said there was no indication at that point that she was involved in anomalous flood-control projects and that his team had not examined her projects in detail.

Her P4.7 billion figure cannot be folded into the allegations against Alan without records directly connecting her projects to the conduct under investigation.

WHERE THE INVESTIGATIONS STAND

The National Bureau of Investigation confirmed in July that it was investigating alleged ghost flood-control projects in Taguig. The Department of Justice clarified that it had not ordered the inquiry, and the NBI later said it would seek Lacson's evidence.

On July 28, Lacson submitted documentary and testimonial material, including at least five case studies, to the Office of the Ombudsman. The submission can support fact-finding, and the act of turning over documents did not file criminal charges.

Lacson said on August 19 that the Ombudsman had issued subpoenas to the DPWH, PRA, LRA, and the Taguig Registry of Deeds. The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that it sought confirmation from the Ombudsman and had not received a response by the time its report was published.

Lacson had said DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon committed to issuing cease-and-desist orders once PRA sent an official request. On August 30, Dizon said DPWH had issued an order on August 20 covering projects connected to the alleged illegal reclamation in Taguig, following a directive from the Office of the President through PRA.

As of August 30, the reports carrying Dizon's statement did not reproduce the order or identify every project it covers. No final PRA forfeiture resolution or public final ruling had established criminal liability against Alan Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, the Taguig city government, or the contractors discussed in Lacson's disclosures.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE FILES

I do not want taxpayers reduced to choosing between Lacson's accusations and Cayetano's Facebook broadcasts.

What troubles me most is that it apparently took a political quarrel for these records to receive sustained national attention. The dispute may explain why Lacson started looking into Taguig, but it does not determine whether his allegations are true. PRA and DENR had already raised concerns, and the relevant files were already inside government. Accountability should not depend on which politician happens to be angry at another.

DPWH has the programs of work, plans, station limits, quantity calculations, inspection reports, as-built surveys, progress billings, disbursement vouchers, and original geotagged photographs. PRA, LLDA, and DENR hold the permit, clearance, and environmental records, while the LRA and Registry of Deeds can produce the title histories, patents, surveys, registration decrees, transfers, and owners' names.

The burden now belongs to government: reconcile project boundaries, billing evidence, permits, environmental impact, and title provenance in one public record. Taxpayers paid for the projects, and they should be able to follow the money from appropriation to construction and see who gained control of any property created from the lake.

That work must continue even if Lacson and Cayetano eventually reconcile.