Jinggoy seeks accountability from DPWH over fallen Isabela bridge
Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada on Monday questioned the lack of accountability on the part of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) nearly six months after the collapse of the P1.2 billion Cabagan-Sta. Maria Bridge in Isabela.
In his privileged speech, Estrada emphasized that aside from the truck driver, design consultant, and bridge contractor, there should also be public officials who exercised oversight functions that must be held accountable for the collapse.
'Why is there no mention of disciplinary actions against these supervising officials whose approval and oversight, or lack thereof, enabled this tragedy? Mr. President, wala tayong nabalitaan na nasuspinding opisyal ng DPWH na may kinalaman sa proyektong ito. Wala rin tayong nabalitaang inimbestigahan sila upang panagutin,' the Senate president pro tempore said.
(Mr. President, we have not heard that any DPWH official was suspended concerning this project. We've also not heard that any official was investigated to be held accountable.)
'This incident is more than a structural failure. It is a failure of governance. It exposes weaknesses in our systems, weaknesses that will persist if we refuse to confront them with transparency and resolve,' he added.
Estrada urged the DPWH to take full responsibility and accountability on the matter, not just by pursuing private contractors, but also by holding its officials who were involved in the planning, approval, and implementation of the project liable.
'Explain the approval process, identify the lapses in monitoring and enforcement, and most importantly, assure the public that this will never happen again—not through promises, but through concrete reforms in design, review, safety compliance, and project oversight,' he said.
On February 27, a portion of the bridge that connects the town of Cabagan to Santa Maria in Isabela province collapsed, leaving six people injured.
The DPWH said the bridge can only accommodate up to 44 tons, which is far from the weight of the truck, which was 100 tons.
President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr. visited the collapsed bridge a week after the incident and noted that it had a 'design problem.' But the engineer behind the bridge refuted this, asserting that the structure adhered to the Bridge Code of the Philippines.
During the Senate Blue Ribbon subcommittee's investigation in March, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano expressed belief that the collapse of the Sta. Maria-Cabagan Bridge was not an 'accident,' as he presented several reports from the DPWH and a private construction firm that claim to show there are defects in the bridge even during its construction. –NB, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
12 hours ago
- GMA Network
DPWH-11 denies post linking delay of project in Davao City to politics
A social media post showing a large sign allegedly posted at the Maa Flyover project site in Davao City went viral after it claimed that the project was delayed due to political interference. The sign accused the Marcos and Romualdez administration of political pressure, which allegedly caused the delay of the project. It also alleged that the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) failed to address the road right-of-way issues, withheld the budget, and showed sluggish action from its legal office. When GMA Regional TV One Mindanao visited the site on Saturday, August 2, 2025, no sign was found at the site. In a statement, DPWH-Davao (DPWH-11) denied the claims made in the viral post and clarified that the project is not being politicized. 'The claim that the project is being delayed due to alleged political issues involving the current administration is false and misleading,' DPWH-11 said. DPWH-11 said the Maa-Magtuod Flyover project has been fully funded since 2022, and the funds needed for the completion of the project have already been released. It added that civil works are ongoing at 82.5 percent. The agency explained that the project is facing minor concerns on road right-of-way involving a few properties and utilities. Most of these concerns have already been resolved while some are awaiting funds for settlement. 'As of now, four properties have been tagged as urgent for acquisition and are currently being processed by the office. The acquisition took time for these properties due to existing mortgage lien issues with their land titles. Yet, the office is actively coordinating with their respective mortgagee banks,' DPWH-11 added. DPWH-11 also coordinated with the Davao Light and Power Company and telecommunication companies for the relocation of the poles affected. DPWH-11 assured the public that the project remains a top priority. The government has allocated more than P1.4 billion for the project. The construction began in 2021 and is expected to be finished by 2026.
GMA Network
16 hours ago
- GMA Network
Heated debates or not? Senators ready decision on VP Sara impeachment
Senators are now gearing up for proceedings on Wednesday when the upper chamber decides on how it would proceed with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, following the Supreme Court (SC) ruling declaring the Articles of Impeachment unconstitutional. In an ambush interview, Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa said that should there be a motion in the plenary on Wednesday, August 6, to dismiss the Vice President's impeachment case, the so-called Duterte bloc will "most likely" vote in favor of it. However, he clarified that the Duterte bloc has not discussed anything on the matter. Dela Rosa also said he believes that there's no need for debates among senators, stressing that the SC decision is immediately executory even as the House of Representatives already filed a motion for reconsideration. "In the first place nga para sa akin, there's no need for debates. Bakit pagdebatehan 'yan nagsalita na ang Supreme Court eh. Nagdesisyon na ang Supreme Court, bakit mag-debate pa tayo? Hindi ako lawyer…pero naniwala ako that nobody is supreme and above the Supreme Court, except God," he said. (In the first place, I believe that there's no need for debates. Why should we still debate on that when the Supreme Court has already spoken? I'm not a lawyer... but I believe that nobody is supreme and above the Supreme Court, except God.) "Tignan natin kung ano magsipaglabasan bukas. Ayaw kong magsalita ng tapos. Pero kung tanungin niyo ako, I am very much inclined to support and obey the decision of the Supreme Court. No questions asked," he added. (Let's see what comes out tomorrow. I don't want to preempt anything, but if you ask me, I am very much inclined to support and obey the decision of the Supreme Court. No questions asked.) Dela Rosa said he was still willing to listen to the arguments of his fellow senators, particularly the four who signed a draft resolution on how the Senate can proceed with Duterte's impeachment trial after the SC ruling. "Four versus 20? Maging mainit ba 'yan (Will the debates be heated)? I don't know," he said. Long debates Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Vicente "Tito" Sotto III said he expects that the debates tomorrow will be long. "Yes, I've read it. I'm ready for tomorrow," Sotto said, referring to the 97-page Supreme Court decision. For his part, Senator Erwin Tulfo said his desire for the impeachment trial to continue still stands, emphasizing that he wants the public to see the evidence on the Articles of Impeachment. "This was before when the Supreme Court made the decision [declaring the articles] unconstitutional. Hanggang ngayon, that is my stand. Gusto ko sanang makita. Pero may limitations na ngayon, 'di ba? So, mayroong sinasabing unconstitutional. So, 'yun ang pinag-aralan ko these past few days and I will be basing my decision diyan sa lumalabas ngayon," Tulfo said in a separate interview. (This was before when the Supreme Court made the decision that the articles are unconstitutional. Until now, that is my stand. I would like to see the evidence. But there are limitations now, right? It was declared unconstitutional. So, that's what I am studying these past few days and I will be basing my decision on what will come out.) He also said he was expecting "heated" debates tomorrow between senators in favor of dismissing the case, and those who want the trial to continue. Voting 13-0-2, the SC earlier declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that these are barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that these violate her right to due process. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC said it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. The House of Representatives on Monday asked the SC to reverse its decision, saying it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate permitted to exercise its power to try the case. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
17 hours ago
- GMA Network
1Sambayan, others ask SC to pause action on Sara impeachment, allow arguments
Political coalition 1Sambayan and others on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to issue a status quo ante order that will pause the proceedings of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, a day before the Senate is expected to decide whether to abide by the High Court's ruling that barred the trial. The petitioners filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the impeachment cases as well as to admit their motion for reconsideration, where they asked the SC to issue a status quo ante order and to set the case for oral arguments. A status quo order is intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy, according to the SC. '[I]t is judicially wise for this Honorable Court to grant a Status Quo Ante Order that prevents the Senate of the Philippines from taking concrete action such as to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment considering the pending constitutional issues that have yet to be resolved by this Honorable Court,' the petitioners said in their 52-page motion. Among the petitioners were retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and retired Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales. Petitioner Howard Calleja, meanwhile, called on the Senate to hold off from deciding on the impeachment due to the pending petition. 'That's why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate na sana pakinggan muna itong mga issues. Let us thresh out all the issues bago tayo mag desisyon kung idi-dismiss or whatever 'yung gagawin natin,' he said. (That's why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate, hopefully they will first listen to these issues first. Let us thresh out all the issues before we decide whether to dismiss or whatever action we will take.) Calleja said that the Senate impeachment court should also continue the trial. 'Pero kung hindi nila maisip na gawin 'yun siguro hingin atin kumbaga mag status quo ante muna tayo. Huwag tayong ora-orada na gagawa ng desisyon kasi nga meron pang pending na ito na pwede mag bago,' he said. (But if they don't think of doing that, we will ask for a status quo ante. Let's not rush into making a decision because this is still pending and could change things.) 'Na sana kung gusto nila galangin ang Korte Suprema, galangin din nila ang proseso at sa pag galang ng proseso, eh medyo—sabi ko nga status quo muna. Hinay-hinay kasi ang proseso hindi pa tapos,' he added. (That hopefully, if they want to respect the SC, they should also respect the process, and in respecting the process—like I said, status quo for now. Let's take it slow because the process isn't over yet.) In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. However, the SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. In their MR, the petitioners said that the SC ruling overturned the Francisco Jr. ruling, where the SC previously said that an impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated upon the filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, or when an impeachment complaint is filed and verified by at least one-third of the membership of the House. The petitioners argued that the fourth impeachment complaint was filed and acted upon before the House adjourned. They argued that the first three complaints cannot be deemed to have attained the status of being 'initiated.' 'It is respectfully emphasized that the Fourth Complaint had already been approved prior to the adjournment of Congress; hence the effectivity of the one-year ban rule upon adjournment does not affect it,' they said. Aside from this, the petitioners argued that the ruling on the reckoning of the one-year ban will lead to grave consequences. 'Such a rule creates a perverse incentive for an impeachable officer to inoculate himself from accountability simply by causing the filing of sham complaints, because whether the Congress acts on them, the mere filing would already trigger and consume the one-year ban, a result inconsistent with the Constitution,' they said. The petitioners also stressed that the first three complaints never reached the House committee. This is the third motion for reconsideration filed with the SC against its ruling. Last week, some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Duterte filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam, where they asked the High Court to declare the fourth impeachment complaint as constitutional. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives on Monday filed its own motion for reconsideration, arguing that it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case. — BM, GMA Integrated News
