Espinoza: Public funds, not political favor

Danao City Mayor Ramon “Nito” Durano III did the right thing in officially refusing to issue permits for infrastructure projects slated for next year even with the approved national budget allocation of approximately P89.35 million for road repairs and construction of the DPWH’s (Department of Public Works and Highways) office that speciously shows utter disregard for the damage left by typhoon Tino.

In SunStar Cebu’s news story, the Danao City Government has called on the National Government and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to reprogram these funds toward urgent bridge reconstruction and flood mitigation projects because of the damaged left by typhoon Tino.

The City Government’s position was outlined in a post published on the official Danao City Government Facebook page on Dec. 20, 2025, where Vice Mayor Ivy Durano explained the reasons behind the mayor’s decision.

Vice Mayor Durano made a discourse on the City’s official Facebook page that the situation illustrates a common friction point in urban planning where national agencies prioritize “preventive maintenance” or general widening, while local units are forced to manage immediate disasters.

She also stated that the City’s technical review found that DPWH is planning to tear up and re-concrete roads that are still “structurally sound and serviceable.” This “good road to better road” phenomenon is often criticized by local leaders who see it as a waste of public funds when critical bridges remain broken nearby.

“Sad to note that the projects submitted by the DPWH to Mayor Nito for 2026 are not among the City’s priority projects,” the vice mayor added in her post.

To the critics of Mayor Durano, his refusal to issue the permit and his opposition to these projects could undoubtedly be hyped as “politically motivated,” but that sidesteps the real and more uncomfortable issue and that it could be possible that the funding for the project was sourced out by 5th District Rep. Duke Frasco. However, once public money is released, it does not remain a political favor owed to anyone. It becomes a public trust.

This is where the debate should properly begin.

In the aftermath of typhoon Tino, Danao City faces damaged bridges and heightened flood risks — problems that threaten lives, mobility and economic recovery. Against this backdrop, re-concreting a highway that is still structurally sound understandably raises eyebrows. Mayor Durano’s proposal to realign the funds toward bridge repair and flood mitigation is not an act of political hostility; it is a reassessment of priorities shaped by calamity.

Those who frame his stance as political conveniently avoid a more troubling question: why should visibly “good” roads take precedence over critical but less glamorous infrastructure like flood control and bridge safety? The answer, historically, is not engineering, but politics.

For decades, infrastructure spending has often favored projects that are easy to see, easy to brand and easy to claim credit for. Roads get paved, signs get posted, and ribbons get cut — even when more urgent needs remain unattended. When this mindset prevails, public works risk becoming instruments of political visibility rather than solutions to public vulnerability.

Mayor Durano’s position disrupts this pattern. It challenges the notion — long familiar to the public — that allocations are untouchable simply because they are already earmarked. Realignment, especially after a disaster, is not defiance. It is adaptability, a quality sorely needed in an era of increasingly destructive typhoons.

Ironically, insisting that pre-typhoon plans must proceed unchanged, regardless of post-typhoon realities, is what truly politicizes public spending. It reduces infrastructure to entitlement, not necessity.

At its core, this issue is not about personalities or political camps. It is about whether public funds will be treated as flexible tools for public safety or as fixed tokens of political patronage. Mayor Durano’s call forces that conversation — and that, perhaps, is why it unsettles some.

The standoff between Danao City and the DPWH highlights a growing tension in Philippine governance: the gap between national infrastructure spending and local survival needs. When a City refuses multi-million-peso projects, it raises a fundamental question about whether “development” is measured by the amount of concrete poured or by the safety of the people living near it.

In times of disaster, governance must choose substance over symbolism. Paved roads may impress, but bridges that hold and floodwaters that recede save lives.