Eastern Visayas Media Without Borders
By Miriam G. Desacada
Tacloban City–The 4th district of Leyte, comprising five towns and a city, spreads across 1.5 thousand square kilometers, or about one/sixth part of the province’s land area of 6.3 thousand square kilometers. Apart from its size, however, it seems to be the most attractive entity for the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to shower its “blessings” on. Let’s take a look at the available records from this agency, as some insiders had provided.Out of the DPWH’s P6.9 billion allocation for infrastructure projects for the entire province, the biggest chunk went to this relatively small district, approximately P4.2 billion, or about 60 percent of the total budget for the province.
DPWH records showed at least 165 flood control and other infrastructure projects, costing about P6.9 billion, were implemented in Leyte province, three of which were reported with zero completion, even after their completion dates last year. How lucky is Leyte’s 4th district, under Representative Richard Gomez, or so we thought.
The “blessings” also portray another narrative: What profits the district if it loses the vital services it really needs.The numbers look impressive on paper: Out of P4.2 billion for the province, a staggering P2.52 billion went to at least 35 flood control projects in the district, in just three years.By any measure, ₱2.52 billion is a substantial sum for a congressional district. Aside from its being incredible, it has a disturbing shadow. Nearly half of the district’s massive allocation, about ₱1.02 billion was poured into Ormoc City, the political bailiwick of his wife, Mayor Lucy Torres-Gomez.
In fact, no less than 17 flood control projects were clustered there, including five concentrated along the Pagsanga-an River where most residents in the area contest this, as the actual situation do not match what official documents declare.
“Mahadlok lang ‘ta mosulti,” said one obscure resident near the riverbank.The rest of the district’s allocation tells a similar story, only with a different twist. Another 17 projects—seawalls, culvert boxes, and more flood control structures—were scattered across the district’s five towns.
Albuera alone accounted for nine projects, costing ₱759 million. Kananga, headed by Gomez’s brother-in-law, Mayor Mark Torres, received five projects worth ₱385.7 million, while Isabel , whose mayor was Gomez’ only ally in the elections, got two projects totaling ₱213.4 million.
Two other towns received only marginal allocations.At hindsight, when these funds are directed wisely, it can transform communities—through schools, health facilities, farm-to-market roads, livelihood programs, and other critical services. But behind these numbers and project signboards lies a picture of skewed priorities and uneven governance in the district, under the helm of Gomez.
This distribution of funds and projects raises serious questions. Why has nearly half the district’s allocation been directed to Ormoc City, already under the stewardship of his wife? Why have politically allied towns received some of the largest shares, while other areas in the district appear underserved? And why has flood control, in particular, become the overwhelming budgetary priority?Infrastructure experts note that flood control, while vital in a district vulnerable to heavy rains and floods, such projects are also prone to misuse. They involve large sums, are technically complex, and often lack easily verifiable benchmarks for completion. This makes them convenient vehicles for inflated costs or questionable implementation.
“Halatado man kaayo,” quipped one engineering pundit who asked not to be named.
Meanwhile, other pressing needs of the district appear to be sidelined. Healthcare facilities and services in rural barangays remain inadequate, educational infrastructure lags, livelihood support and farm-to-market roads remain stalled as a promise to farmers and the underprivileged.
These areas, which could have a direct, measurable impact on people’s lives, were eclipsed by the singular emphasis on flood control, which absorbed about 70 percent of total spending in the district over the years.In some towns, local officials admit that requests for classrooms or rural health units were shelved because “funds were already committed to flood projects.”Representative Gomez’s performance record, viewed through the lens of these allocations, highlights a troubling imbalance. It reflects not only a concentration of funds to his personal political interests, which is also a blatant disregard for the broader, more diverse needs of his constituents.Public funds are not meant to flow in only one direction. Until these patterns of selective prioritization are addressed and transparent accounting is made, questions will persist:
Are billions truly protecting communities from floods—or are they drowning out the district’s other urgent needs? Critics are right to ask: Why the obsession with flood control, and why in such concentrated clusters? Is this truly a response to environmental necessity, or a case of using calamity as cover for selective spending? Flood control projects, after all, are notorious for being easy repositories of pork-barrel funds: they involve large budgets, often lack visible benchmarks of success, and can be padded or declared “completed” without scrutiny.Ultimately, governance is not about pouring billions into flood control structures, embankments, or culverts. It is about how wisely and equitably resources are used to uplift the lives of constituents. On this score, Representative Gomez’s record is marred by misplaced priorities, which overshadow his relevance to the 4th district. —Miriam G. Desacada
