A PUBLIC Works and Highways official presented by the prosecution Monday testified that 444 projects worth P27.43 billion were identified on the agency database with former Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez as the proponent.
The witness, DPWH Programming Division chief Peter Paul Cortez, however, admitted that the details were not based on his personal knowledge, as they were encoded based solely on instructions and information provided to his office by the late undersecretary Maria Catalina “Cathy” Cabral.
He said Cabral, whose office is responsible for vetting and evaluating infrastructure projects, gave his office a long list containing the projects and the names of legislators who were tagged as proponents.
On a clarificatory question from Third Division chairman Associate Justice Karl Miranda whether he made efforts to verify the information handed from Cabral’s office, the witness said it was not part of his job to check the accuracy of the list of projects and the multiple proponent/legislators named opposite each.
“(The names) were supplied by Usec Cabral po, if ever there are proponents. Sometimes verbally, sometimes may handwritten notes from Usec Cabral,” Cortez said.
Likewise, he said he never received the instruction personally as they were mostly given to his staff who in turn, relays to him such instructions.
Under cross-examination by lawyer Felix Villa, he admitted that he never had a personal interaction with any of the proponent legislators named on the list provided by Cabral including the former Speaker and former Ao Bicol Rep. Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co.
He also admitted that he had no document showing instructions from former DPWH Undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral to identify Romualdez as a proponent.
According to Cortez, the identification of proponents was based on information passed down through DPWH officials, particularly Cabral, whose instructions could be conveyed verbally or through notes.
The witness further acknowledged that the database contained no particulars concerning alleged commissions.
“I would have no knowledge (if they received commissions), Your Honor,” Cortez said.
The admissions raised questions about the evidentiary significance of project entries bearing Romualdez’s name, particularly whether the database could independently establish his involvement in proposing or securing the projects.
DATABASE ENTRIES BASED ON SUPERIOR’S INSTRUCTIONS
Cortez explained that his division received, encoded and consolidated project proposals for the national budget.
Some projects, he said, were absent from the original budget program or National Expenditure Program but subsequently appeared in the enacted 2025 General Appropriations Act.
Asked about the origins of these projects, Cortez indicated that they might have been added during bicameral conference committee deliberations.
“Best guess … (the insertion happened) in between the GAB (General Appropriations Bill) and the bicam (bicameral conference committee on the budget). Sa GAB po included yung errata …yung corrections namin. Pero yung insertions, I’m not sure po,” said Cortez.
During questioning by Justice Miranda, Cortez acknowledged that in his judicial affidavit submitted as part of the prosecution’s evidence, he attributed of the projects to Romualdez and Co merely on assumptions based on Cabral’s information.
“We assumed po. Sa database po nakalagay po yung name ng proponent … (the names came) from Usec Cabral,” he added.
Associate Justice Ronal Moreno also examined the process by which individuals were identified as project proponents, including the absence of independent documentary verification.
Cortez explained that his division relied on instructions from Cabral and that project proponents did not necessarily communicate directly with him.
In response to Justice Moreno, he said that it was “normal in any year” that legislators from both the Lower House and the Senate would submit letter requests for their pet projects.
“Normal po in any year but it (request) will have to undergo vetting and evaluation po,” he said.
He noted that the lone exception was Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson who never submitted any such requests.
However, Cortez said the name of the requesting lawmaker maybe replaced by the name of a different member of Congress depending on the instruction from the office of Undersecretary Cabral.
“If ang nag-request si Senator A at sinabi ni Usec Cabral i-tag si Senator B, puwede ba if sinabi ni Usec Cabral?” Justice Moreno asked.
“Puwede sir, as per instruction,” Cortez replied.
He said the encoder will not use the request letter as basis in inputting the name of the proponent as they would rely on Cabral’s instruction.
He said, as far as his office is concerned, Cabral’s directive is considered “final” and that no one is allowed to contest it afterwards.
The defense pointed out that with Cabral’s death in December 2025, there is no longer any means to test the veracity of the assertions made by Cortez as to the extent of her participation.
Cortez said the list of projects identified with Co and Romualdez were not submitted in the Annual Budget Proposal generated by the DPWH nor in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) approved by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) but later appeared as funded in the General Appropriations Act (GAA)
He acknowledged that based solely on Cabral’s instructions and despite the absence of evidence or reference and the lack of supporting feasibility studies , the lawmakers were tagged in the database as proponents.
“I definitely know wala pong vetting yung mga yun. The identification po came from Usec Cabral,” he said.
metrosundaily
