Budget Summary · Priority Review Leads

Disclaimer. Amounts are extracted budget allocations or proposals, not verified payments, losses or personal receipts. Similar titles, repeated amounts and unmatched records are review leads; they do not establish unlawful conduct. Title-similarity percentages are text scores, not probabilities of identity or wrongdoing. Representative names describe possible geographic coverage, not who proposed, controlled, benefited from or received a project. Parsing, location and scope uncertainties must be checked against cited source pages.

These are preliminary, document-based observations, not allegations or findings that any person, office, contractor or other entity acted unlawfully. A flag, unmatched record, repeated amount or title, price or location outlier, or missing document is a prompt for review; it does not establish intent, responsibility, benefit, overpayment, duplicate scope or wrongdoing. Names and geographic or district associations indicate possible coverage only, not sponsorship, authorship, control, receipt or personal involvement. A DEO-to-legislative district crosswalk, where used, is a preliminary administrative or geographic association. It does not establish where a project will be implemented, who proposed or requested it, whether it was added during legislative deliberations, or who sponsored, received or controlled funds. Source documents, data completeness, parsing, matching, categories, timing and boundaries may affect results. Verify cited primary records and seek relevant context before drawing or publishing conclusions.

This site is updated as additional source documents are ingested and reviewed. Its records and calculations are preliminary and open to correction. Additional documents, stakeholder input, and independent review can surface missing information, errors, or context and improve accuracy over time; they may support more complete calculations but do not by themselves verify a record. Inviting people to examine the underlying sources and share corrections is part of the purpose of this work.

FY2027 budget · priority review

8cross-project leads

Undocumented HGAB, MPBs and INSPIRE, location, project repeats, cost density and unit costs, RCS, retained-project changes, and FMR proximity.

Undocumented HGAB projects2,362 · ₱71.10B

Absolute NEP → HGAB allocation movement439 · ₱92.744B

GAB-reported removals295 · ₱8.836B

Out of Place map-review records176 · ₱3.310B

Across all 15,979 HGAB rows, 13,617 (85.22%) have a Proposal or Senate HGAB document match. 2,362 rows worth ₱71.10B currently have no matched document from either source. The reported Senate/GAB removals (295 items; ₱8.836B) remain aggregate-only and cannot be assigned to individual rows from the available data.

Follow the changes between budget stages

NEP → HGAB (House version) → GAB (Senate version) → Bicam (House/Senate reconciliation) → GAA (enacted).

NEP and final GAA provide the published bookends. The investigative focus is how allocations change through House and Senate deliberations and bicameral reconciliation. An HGAB line without a selected NEP counterpart warrants verification against project scope, source pages and later budget versions. A matcher result alone does not establish that a project is new or identify who proposed it.

These pages currently trace NEP and House readings. No survival claim is made for Senate GAB, Bicam or FY2027 GAA until those versions are available and reconciled. Retained NEP repeat candidates, HGAB records without a selected NEP counterpart, and undocumented HGAB projects answer different questions.

Compare estimated allocations across all congressional districts →

Priority review leads

Eight cross-project concerns to follow across the research pages. Cards use the best available amount measure—screened allocation or absolute allocation movement—so they are not one common risk score. Screens overlap; amounts are not losses and must not be added together.

01 · NEP → HGAB

Undocumented HGAB

2,362 remain · ₱71.10B

295 reported removed · ₱8.836B

Review undocumented HGAB projects →

02 · NEP → HGAB retained lines

Office and allocation changes

₱92.744B absolute movement · 439 changes

−₱82.379B net change215 increases · 224 decreases67 office changes126 changes ≥₱50M

Absolute movement sums the size of each matched line’s allocation change, so increases and decreases both count. Net allocation across these lines fell by ₱82.379B. Changed scope or office assignment needs review; this is not a loss estimate.

Allocation changes →Office changes →

03 · Historical and within-stage

Project repeats across GAA and HGAB

₱48.207B · 1,379 unique NEP proposals

2,135 NEP–GAA pairs97 HGAB 3rd repeat pairs13 with explicit chainage overlap

This is the unique NEP proposal allocation represented in the repeat screen, not a duplicate-loss estimate. Recurring titles or ranges call for scope checks; they do not establish duplicate funding.

Review repeat screens →

04 · Project scale

MPBs and INSPIRE

₱38.747B · 2,835 MPB candidates

MPBs have 2,835 records without a selected NEP counterpart under the current matcher. INSPIRE is a returning named appropriation: ₱300M in GAA 2023, ₱100M in GAA 2025 and ₱835M proposed for FY2027.

MPB review →INSPIRE history →

05 · Cost density

Cost density and bill-unit summaries

₱29.317B across 191 high-rate screens

111 also cross the peer outlier fence4,243 printed project summaries · 7 groups

Allocation per stated meter is separate from parsed bill-item cost per unit. Unit-cost distributions and summaries vary by group, printed bill and cost basis; the PCCP Atlas is a separate regional reference analysis.

Cost per meter →Peer unit costs →PCCP Atlas →

06 · Farm-to-market roads

FMR road and cropland proximity

₱14.551B · 749 Flag / Double Flag projects

0 Review · ₱0.000M206 Baseline · ₱4.919B9 Coordinate review964 FMRs screened

Printed route endpoints are compared with DPWH classified roads and ESA WorldCover 2021 mapped cropland using a shared 500 m cutoff. Rows with endpoint gaps over 20 km remain in coordinate review. Proximity does not prove road access or farm use.

Review FMR road and cropland distances →

07 · Location

Location concerns, including OOP

₱3.310B · 176 map-review records

170 OOP projects are flagged as outside their named locality. Printed coordinates and locality matches need map and source-page checks.

Review location map →

08 · Scope and documentation

Rainwater Collector Systems

₱835.8M · 199 DEO lines

All 199 DEO lines carry the same amount; POW details are currently extracted for 22. Compare site, capacity, quantities and design before interpreting a standard package.

Review RCS allocations and POW evidence →

Parsing and location gotchas

NEP → HGAB (House) → GAB (Senate) → Bicam → GAA are different stages; prior-year GAA is enacted, current proposals are not. Match allocation records at the same hierarchy before comparing money.

Printed-total reconciliation catches amount/hierarchy errors but cannot certify title identity or location.
Preserve source pages and occurrence counts. One comparison row may group multiple allocations; headers are not projects.
Require barangay → town/city → province context. DEO numbers do not identify legislative districts.
Keep directional names, tranches, province splits and construction chainage distinct. The confirmed multi-place Butuan/RTR line stays outside strict LEG totals.
Strict congressional rankings cover only 41.4% of extracted allocation value. Names indicate geography, not authorship or sponsorship.

Inspect congressional coverage limits →

Other schedules · NEP → HGAB comparison coverage

Compare the same budget hierarchy before calculating changes. Missing comparable NEP data is not zero. The schedules and matched subsets below overlap other findings and must not be summed.

Scope	NEP allocation pesos	HGAB allocation pesos	Allocation adjustment pesos	Coverage limit
FMR annex	₱16,000,000,000	₱19,628,100,000	₱3,628,100,000	Programme controls; individual counterpart confidence stays separate
NIA exact named-title subset	₱10,355,321,000	₱8,855,321,000	₱-1,500,000,000	Matched subset only; not the whole NIA budget
HFEP programme total	₱14,539,832,000	₱10,088,832,000	₱-4,451,000,000	MOOE and Capital Outlays matched at programme level
NIA irrigation annex	₱17,598,181,000	₱17,999,305,000	₱401,124,000	Reviewed detailed annex controls; project identity remains separate
DepEd school operations	Not established	₱102,670,874,000	Not established	Comparable NEP school baseline not built

Evidence needed to strengthen the claims

Investigative question	Dataset or documents needed	Current workspace limitation
RCS needs	Geocoded RCS sites, storage/catchment design, population served, water access and dry-season demand	Rainfall is province-level; it cannot locate demand or actual sites
Repeated work	Contract IDs, bill of quantities, as-built chainage, completion and disbursements	Budget titles and stated chainage do not establish paid work
Price clustering	Work quantities, standard estimates, procurement thresholds, prior-year comparable contracts	Exact peso values alone are not unit prices
Unmatched NEP–HGAB lines	Audited native NEP/HGAB occurrence links and original PDF pages	A balanced total does not certify every unmatched row
LEG rankings	Dated barangay/municipality LEG boundaries and funded-segment geometry	PH location DB contains undated and conflicting claims
INSPIRE	Approved total project cost, phase ledger, obligations and releases	Appropriations are not disbursements

Workspace search found a province poverty file, but its rows do not identify year or indicator definition; it is not used as a needs control. The local flood project summary covers 2016–2024 projects, not present-day hazard exposure. Neither provides the missing RCS site/catchment, water-access or demand denominator. Additional datasets must be dated, sourced and matched to the correct geographic level before correlation.

Independent source cross-check · current snapshot

Comparative source: csiiiv FY2027 budget analysis · GitHub snapshot 34ef5d8cbbac. Downloaded 2026-10-18T08:46:20Z. Primary budget PDFs remain authoritative. Reconciliation, source hashes and update details (JSON).

The external NIA House annex contains 828 project rows / PHP 17,999,305,000; the local detailed schedule contains 828 / PHP 17,999,305,000. The external NEP detailed annex is now available (791 rows). The reviewed extraction takes priority over older local automated parsing. Newly recovered rows are parser corrections, not budget insertions.
The external retained NEP/House comparison uses the SECOND reading and reports 5801 unmatched House candidates and 1341 unmatched NEP candidates. Our principal analysis uses the THIRD reading. Chainage/re-scoping fallbacks consume some external pairs; differing stations and altered geography still require independent review. The earlier 5,837/2,139 figures are not a current target.