Experts from the academe, private sectors and various advocacy groups urged President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. to prioritize more consumer-friendly and ensure transparency in rebooting the economy through infrastructure projects.
Prof. Victor Andres Manhit, president of the Stratbase ADR Institute, emphasized that infrastructure development is instrumental in achieving long-term growth as part of the needed drive-up investments for the country to move forward especially amid the adverse economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and the external problems that include the effects of the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
“Infrastructure development is important for long-term growth. It provides jobs for Filipinos, ensures income security, allows for increased production and distribution, and stimulates spending that keeps the economy running strong for the long term. Indeed, infrastructure development is instrumental in achieving long-term growth – one that future generations may enjoy,” said Manhit.
In focusing on infrastructure programs, Manhit said Marcos should learn from the lessons of the Build Build Build program of President Duterte for him to prevent committing the same mistakes that compromised the intended achievements of the ambitious program.
The assessment of Duterte’s infrastructure project and the recommendations for the Marcos administration were discussed during a virtual roundtable discussion organized by the Stratbase Albert del Rosario Institute (ADRi) in partnership with consumer advocacy group CitizenWatch Philippines.
It was during the discussion wherein the Build Build Build of the Duterte administration was assessed to inefficient and weak in terms of strategic guidance.
In his presentation for instance, Dr. Epictetus Patalinghug disclosed that Duterte Administration’s medium-term goal was to increase infrastructure spending from 5.4 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 2017 to 7.3 percent in 2022.
However, in 2019, the government announced the shift to a hundred less ambitious and more doable projects. From 2017-2021, the government spent only about P4.98 trillion or about 5.5 percent of the country’s GDP for infrastructure projects.
As of Oct. 31 last year, only eight projects worth P94.64 billion were completed and 77 projects worth P3.5 trillion were on-going. Of which, 30 were still on pre-construction activities.
“There was weak strategic guidance... There was poor project appraisal. I don’t think NEDA (National Economic Development Authority), DOTr (Department of Transportation), and DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways) have an internal capacity to do rapid appraisal. You always need World Bank money, ADB (Asian Development Bank) money to hire consultants,” said Patalinghug, University of the Philippines- Virata School of Business Professor Emeritus and Stratbase ADRi Trustee and program convenor.
“Then you have poor project selection and budgeting. As usual, completion delays and cost overruns. And very few interim and ex-post project evaluation done in our projects,” he added.
Another observation raised over the Build Build Build program is the apparent lack of citizen involvement in the planning and development of the government’s infrastructure program.
Experts said the BBB projects focused much in the National Capital Region and other urban areas at the expense of the rural areas that are in dire need of infrastructure projects.
Recoms for PBBM
Patalinhug, however, said that the institutional problem of departments lacking absorptive capacity cannot be solved within the next six years of the Marcos Administration.
“So, the best thing for BBM is just to look at the shovel-ready projects left by the Duterte government and implement them – the Metro Manila subway, the North-South Commuter Railway. This must transect shovel-ready projects like the Calamba, Tutuban (railway), it is still lacking in bidding acceptance from DOTr for the past two years,” he explained.
He also recommended prioritizing consumer-friendly projects and streamlining the approval process of major infrastructure projects.
“, make it super ready in less than two years, not spend three to four years for processing projects. Two, strengthen project management and monitoring. Three, simplify the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Procurement Reform Law. Four, improve the regulatory framework in the PPP program by focusing on solicited proposals,” he said.
For his part, Infrawatch convenor lawyer Terry Ridon called on Marcos to provide policy clarity on the issues of traffic, electricity, and digital infrastructure that have been affecting the general public.
“Because infrastructure exist at the highest level of the government, it should be the president that should define the infrastructure policy for the rest of his term,” said Ridon.
To ensure a more inclusive infrastructure program, Ridon said advocacy group should be present from planning, construction, to implementation of the government’s infrastructure program.
“In order for us to get the best deal for the public and users, we ought to be able to participate in all levels of the project itself,” he explained.
Of transparency and accountability
For his part, Stratbase ADRi Non-resident Fellow and De La Salle University Department of Political Science Assistant Professor Edwin Santiago said Marcos should take extra precautions in dealing with China-funded infrastructure projects.
He cited for example the Chico River Pump Irrigation Project and the Kaliwa Dam Project wherein experts noted environmental degradation, defective consultation process, questionable selection of contractors, disadvantageous interest rates, onerous contract provisions, and the lack of transparency.
“While infrastructure is important, it should not be infrastructure at all cost, or at any cost. We must hold our leaders accountable because we have seen so many times how a particular need is abused so many people can get away with a lot of things. If there is water shortage, does that mean that just to address the water shortage, we will allow the government to do whatever it wants even with certain unsavory parts of the deal? I don’t think we should allow that,” said Santiago.
“It is very clear that the issues are the same and recurring in these projects. Most glaring is the trademark lack of transparency that strongly suggests irregularities. It has been argued that there is no need for confidentiality if everything is above board,” he argued.
The Duterte administration made several deals with China for various infrastructure projects. Most of those projects, critics said, were not implemented.
Advocacy
In explaining their recommendation to Marcos, Manhit said their goal is to advocate for the government’s adoption of more investment-driven strategy for long-term growth and development.
“And we’ll continue to champion how the private sector has demonstrated its capacity as a prime mover, not only in innovation in delivering goods and services, but in creating value in the lives of the statements of the Philippine society. They create jobs, alleviate poverty, and now are champions in promoting sustainability,” said Manhit.