₱80.61-million road project was reportedly only 65% to 70% complete despite government records showing full completion and payment
BUTUAN CITY (November 5) — Eight officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) have been preventively suspended over alleged irregularities in government infrastructure projects in Surigao del Norte, raising fresh questions about how public funds are disbursed and construction accomplishments verified.
The Office of the Ombudsman announced Wednesday, November 4, that it had ordered the suspension of the eight officials while administrative cases involving grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service are being investigated.
The case centers on allegations that DPWH personnel authorized full payments to contractors despite substantial portions of government-funded infrastructure projects remaining unfinished.
Among the projects under scrutiny is the ₱80.61-million Mahayhay-Tuburan Road project in Del Carmen, Surigao del Norte, awarded to Boometrix Development Corp.
Investigators reportedly found that the road was only 65% to 70% complete, even though DPWH records indicated that the project had been completed and the contractor had received full payment.
“The complaint stated that substantially incomplete projects were fully paid by the DPWH to the detriment of the government,” the Ombudsman said.
The road project had previously figured in graft and malversation complaints involving Surigao del Norte Rep. Francisco “Lalo” Matugas and his son, former lawmaker Francisco “Bingo” Matugas.
The Ombudsman’s suspension order covered six engineers from the DPWH Surigao del Norte First District Engineering Office: Federico Gotico, Demilyn Castrence, Quitinano Armendariz Jr., Edward Tinio, Florencio Sulana and Ricky Arciga.
Also suspended were accountant Jerome Sulapas and District Engineer Annie Dela Vega.
The Ombudsman said the evidence supporting the administrative cases included documents and records gathered by the now-defunct Independent Commission for Infrastructure.
In ordering the preventive suspensions, the anti-graft agency cited the need to protect the investigation from possible interference by respondents who remain in positions of authority.
“Without delving into the merits of the case and based on the evidence submitted by Complainant, the allegations against Respondents appear to be supported by strong evidence at this stage,” the suspension order stated.
The Ombudsman stressed that preventive suspension is a precautionary measure and does not constitute a determination of administrative or criminal liability.
The distinction is important as the investigation continues and the respondents are given the opportunity to answer the allegations.
For communities in Surigao del Norte, the central accountability question goes beyond the suspension of government personnel: How could a publicly funded road reportedly remain substantially unfinished while official records showed it had been completed and fully paid?
The investigation will have to establish who authorized the payments, how project completion was certified, and whether weaknesses in inspection and monitoring allowed public funds to be released without corresponding infrastructure delivery.
