Unpacking the 2025 Flood Control Budget
A recent study by the University of the Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-NCPAG) has highlighted a substantial allocation in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for flood control projects that fall outside the official Flood Management Program (FMP). Dubbed the “shadow” flood control budget, this funding stream has grown consistently over the years, reaching P115.262 billion in 2025.
UP-NCPAG notes that the 2025 shadow flood control allocation is nearly 50% larger than the FMP’s own funding. This distinction matters because it signals a large portion of flood control spending is channeled through projects not explicitly labeled as part of the official program, even though they are designed to mitigate flood risk.
What Is Included in the Shadow Flood Control Budget?
According to the policy note, most of the P115 billion in 2025 is earmarked for infrastructure generally categorized as walls, revetments, dikes, slope and riverbank protection, drainage systems, and coastal protection. In practice, these are major structural projects that operate outside the formal FMP framework but contribute to flood risk reduction.
The study argues that while the public often highlights flood management budgets, other Disaster Risk Reduction Management (DRRM) allocations within the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) merit similar scrutiny. This includes investments for hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, fires, and storm surges that are embedded within various DPWH program areas but not explicitly tagged as disaster expenditures.
Cross-Agency and Cross-Hazard Spending in Focus
Beyond flood control, the report flags an enormous emphasis on road infrastructure in the 2025 GAA, with road-related allocations reaching about P541.98 billion. This level of road funding dwarfs many single-program flood expenditures and underscores the broad scale of infrastructure spending that can interact with disaster risk factors, for better or worse.
UP-NCPAG also points to the real-world impact of these investments. For example, Albay province invested P16.2 billion in flood mitigation through 273 projects since 2018, but still incurred P7.3 billion in infrastructure damage from 2017 to 2023. Oriental Mindoro allocated P11.3 billion across 138 flood-control projects yet suffered P4.1 billion in infrastructure damage, illustrating the challenge of preventing losses even with substantial investment.
Implications for Policy and Governance
The study argues that the scale of “shadow” flood control spending and related DRRM investments calls for enhanced accountability. It recommends that oversight bodies—particularly the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) and congressional committees—probe not only labeled flood projects but also those tagged as disaster-related structures like roads and evacuation centers, especially when implemented by a network of District Engineering Offices (DEOs) nationwide.
To address potential gaps and corruption risks, UP-NCPAG urges systemic reforms, including transferring DRR functions out of the DPWH to a dedicated agency. The goal is to create a risk-sensitive, transparent framework for planning, funding, procurement, and delivery of disaster-related infrastructure. The authors also advocate stronger budget accountability mechanisms, improved tagging and tracking of funds through technology, and clear auditing trails from planning to project delivery.
What Happens Next?
Congress and the ICI are already conducting inquiries into possible misappropriation of public funds intended for flood control. The UP-NCPAG study offers a roadmap for these investigations, urging prosecutors and regulators to identify common patterns across DEOs that may signal gaps where corruption could arise. Ultimately, the report envisions a more transparent, better-coordinated approach to DRRM spending that reduces vulnerability while safeguarding taxpayer money.
