MANILA— The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the preventive suspension of five engineers of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Bulacan First District for their alleged involvement in irregularities surrounding three flood control projects worth nearly P189 million in Baliuag, Bulacan.

The five officials — project engineers Irene D. Ontingco, Kevin A. Geronimo, John Michael E. Ramos, Bernardo P. Villafuerte, and Michelle C. Cruz — will be suspended without pay for up to six months while the administrative cases against them are being resolved.

They are facing charges of Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Gross Neglect of Duty over the implementation of three flood control projects in 2024, with a combined contract value of P188,891,898.23.

The projects involved the construction of reinforced concrete slope revetments in Barangays Piel, San Roque, and Sulivan.

Based on the complaint, the respondents allegedly falsified project documents covering implementation, inspection, acceptance, billing, and payment to make it appear that the necessary contractual and legal requirements had been fulfilled.

“To facilitate the implementation of the contracts and the disbursement of public funds, complainant maintains that respondents falsified documents relating to contract implementation, inspection, acceptance, billing and payment to create the false impression that the contractual and legal prerequisites had been satisfied,” the Ombudsman order stated.

The panel of special investigators also accused the engineers of manipulating documents to facilitate the awarding of the contracts to a joint venture that allegedly failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations.

According to the investigators, “the respondents falsified documentation in relation to the three projects to create the false impression that the joint venture had complied with the requirements of the laws and regulations, thereby ensuring that the contracts will be awarded to it.”

The Ombudsman said the allegations were supported by strong evidence at this stage of the proceedings, providing sufficient basis for the preventive suspension.

It also cited the risk that the respondents could interfere with the investigation if allowed to remain in their positions, noting that they may have access to or custody of documents and other evidence relevant to the cases.