News about the filing of complaints before the Department of Justice (DOJ) against 20 individuals, including public works officials and private contractors, over allegedly anomalous flood control projects, is good. But it is not something to celebrate.
Cebuanos have been waiting for action to be initiated against officials and individuals who may have failed Cebu when large areas were hit by deadly flash floods during typhoon Tino on Nov. 4, 2025. It took nine months after the disaster for the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to file the complaints before the DOJ.
We now have the announcement that the NBI Cebu district office filed two separate complaints on July 29, 2026, against Suzette Nwanaka, district engineer of Cebu’s Third District Engineering Office, and 19 others.
The complaints involve two allegedly anomalous flood control projects in Barangay Singsing, Balamban, Cebu. The alleged offenses include malversation, graft, perjury, falsification, and violations of procurement laws. The DOJ has clarified that these complaints are undergoing preliminary investigation. These are not yet criminal cases filed in court, and there is still no finding of probable cause.
This preliminary investigation by the DOJ is only the first step. That is why there is no celebration. It also comes much delayed, if compared to promised timetables by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
Also, the announcement itself did not provide enough information for the public to understand the significance of these cases or to even determine which areas or communities may have been affected by the failure of these projects. Were areas in Cantuod and Nangka, the two hardest-hit barangays in Balamban during typhoon Tino, supposed to benefit from these projects?
As to the delay in the filing of complaints, DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon said last December that criminal and administrative charges would be filed in “early 2026.” The nine months it took investigators to file these complaints could perhaps be explained by the need to ensure a strong case. But after the promises made in December, the public received little information about how the investigations were progressing.
Taken in this context, the government is making the process of accountability difficult for the public to follow.
People cannot monitor an investigation when they are given little information about it. Government can certainly provide basic updates without compromising their cases. It can also explain if these two Balamban cases are the same ones that the DPWH promised to pursue after typhoon Tino or if they are separate from other investigations.
For people who lost houses, livelihoods and family members during typhoon Tino, the important question is not merely about who is on the list of 20 individuals in the complaints.
It is whether the government can explain which flood control projects failed or were anomalous, which communities were supposed to benefit from them, who was responsible and what has been done to ensure that the same failures do not happen again.