444 projects worth ₱27 billion have come under scrutiny following testimony identifying former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and former Ako Bicol party-list representative Zaldy Co as proponents of infrastructure projects included in the 2025 national budget. A Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineer reportedly told investigators on November 9 that the project insertions may have occurred during the Bicameral Conference Committee proceedings.

Former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and former Ako Bicol party-list representative Zaldy Co were identified as proponents of 444 government projects worth more than ₱27 billion under the 2025 national budget, according to testimony presented by a Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineer on Monday, November 9.

Engineer Peter Paul Cortez reportedly identified the two former lawmakers during proceedings connected to the investigation into alleged irregularities in government infrastructure spending.

According to GMA News, Cortez testified that the projects were probably inserted during the Bicameral Conference Committee (Bicam), where representatives of the House of Representatives and the Senate reconcile differences between their respective versions of the proposed national budget.

The testimony raises further questions about how infrastructure projects were selected, endorsed and incorporated into the final General Appropriations Act (GAA) for 2025.

Questions Surrounding the Budget Insertions

The identification of Romualdez and Co as project proponents adds another development to the ongoing controversy surrounding alleged budget insertions during the preparation of the 2025 national budget.

The two former lawmakers have previously been linked to allegations involving questionable infrastructure allocations, including projects under the DPWH.

In November 2025, Co released documents containing a list of projects he claimed were part of approximately ₱100 billion in budget insertions. An examination by the Philippine Daily Inquirer placed the total value of projects in the documents at approximately ₱99.85 billion, with around ₱81 billion allocated to the DPWH. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2140289/in-charts-where-are-the-projects-that-marcos-supposedly-asked-for-and-who-implemented-them-based-on-zaldy-cos-documents

The latest testimony, however, concerns a separate figure involving 444 projects worth more than ₱27 billion. The two amounts should not be treated as interchangeable without examining the underlying project records.

How the Bicameral Conference Committee Works

The Bicam plays an important role in the national budget process because it reconciles differences between the budget proposals approved by the House and Senate.

Changes agreed upon during these discussions become part of the final budget submitted for presidential approval.

The reported testimony raises questions about whether the 444 projects were included in the original budget proposals or introduced during the reconciliation process.

Determining when and how the projects entered the budget will require comparing the original National Expenditure Program, the versions approved by both chambers, and the final 2025 GAA.

Project Proponents and Accountability

Being identified as a project proponent does not automatically establish that an individual received public funds or committed an offense.

However, the designation is important because it can help investigators establish who requested or endorsed particular government projects and whether the projects followed established budget procedures.

Cortez’s previous testimony also drew attention to how project proponents were recorded in DPWH databases, including instructions from former senior officials. https://tribune.net.ph/2026/04/21/dpwh-official-links-lawmakers-project-roles-to-cabral

The latest disclosure adds another area of inquiry to the broader investigation into alleged irregularities involving government infrastructure projects.

Authorities and investigators will need to examine the individual project records, funding allocations and supporting documents to establish the circumstances surrounding their inclusion.

For now, the reported identification of Romualdez and Co as proponents of the 444 projects remains a matter requiring further documentary verification and investigation.