Alcantara, Named in ‘Balato’ Scheme, to Testify in Co Sandiganbayan Case | INQToday
Why It Matters
The trial underscores the Philippines’ anti‑graft drive, exposing how kickbacks can jeopardize critical infrastructure and public funds, and it may reshape procurement oversight.
Key Takeaways
- •Former DPWH engineer Alcantara to testify in malversation trial
- •He is alleged conduit for ₱30‑million Balato kickbacks
- •Prosecutors say he delivered ₱100‑million share via corrupt network
- •Testimony expected to corroborate former undersecretary Bernardo’s allegations
- •Road dyke project valued ₱289.4 million flagged for structural deficiencies
Summary
Former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineer Henry Alcantara is set to appear as a witness in the Sandiganbayan’s sixth division on March 23, testifying in the malversation case against former Akobiko representative Saudi Co. and fifteen co‑accused. The trial centers on alleged kickbacks—referred to locally as “balato”— tied to a ₱289.4 million flood‑control road dyke project in Oriental Mimaropa.
Prosecutors allege Alcantara acted as the conduit for multiple illicit payments. According to former DPWH undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, the scheme involved a ₱30 million share routed through regional director Gerald Pakanan, followed by a larger ₱100 million portion allegedly funneled through Alcantara. Bernardo further claims he received ₱40 million in 2023, another ₱40 million in 2024, and ₱20 million in 2025 from Alcantara.
Bernardo’s testimony, which already implicated other officials, is expected to be bolstered by Alcantara’s own statements, potentially confirming the flow of funds and the involvement of DPWH personnel. The Ombudsman’s investigation found serious structural deficiencies in the dyke, underscoring concerns that the corrupt payments may have compromised project quality.
If convicted, the defendants could face non‑bailable imprisonment and substantial forfeiture, sending a strong signal to public‑sector contractors about the risks of graft. The case also highlights systemic vulnerabilities in infrastructure procurement, prompting calls for tighter oversight and transparency in future government projects.
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...