Who is accountable for the problematic and anomalous P680-million Ungka Flyover project? What is the intervention that must be made in order to rectify the problem? These are the two most important questions that should be answered now as the mess drags to its first year. While it can be noted that a consultant has been hired to examine and investigate what caused the sinking of piers 4,5 and 6 of the superstructure, to date only a few statements came out of the action and an official report has not been made available to the public as of press time. What took the consultant too long to make its report is somewhat interesting if not anomalous.

Like any government projects, the Ungka Flyover was funded using tax payers money thus the public outrage has reached a deafening level today. When it was constructed to resolve the worsening traffic condition in the area and at the very least shorten the travel time from the city to the airport vice versa, the structure is in fact the cause of the severe vehicle traffic not mentioning the flooding these days. It is causing exactly the opposite of its purpose.

Social media-empowered individuals are posting their sentiments and analysis on an hourly basis. Mainstream media news and commentaries are non-stop. The House of Representatives, the bulwark of a publicity hungry institution is about to commence its investigation of the project. The problem is now muddled with opinions and dangerous little knowledge from all fronts that the real issues and questions are now buried underneath.

The head office of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) has also announced an amount of around P250 million that is needed to repair the problem. It was made however without a detailed and factual explanation as to the cause of the problem. The consultant hired to investigate the problem has stated in a Regional Development Council meeting that the soil underneath the piers is liquefiable and susceptible to sinking. Is it now the official explanation? This question remains unanswered.

If and only if it is in fact the reason, then should the government make the consultant hired by the national office of DPWH prior the design and construction be made answerable? Will those at the national office of DPWH be made accountable for allowing the design and construction given the apparent failure of the consultant to fully consider and understand the characters of the soil underneath? Does the contractor have any accountability since they are bound to follow the approved design? Did the contractor follow the design? Was there an anomaly in the bidding process? These are just but a few of the questions that are left unanswered until now.

At the very least, the regional office of DPWH has maintained a silent stance on the issue. They have a responsibility to let the public knew as they were the one who publicly announced the commencement of the project and its opening last year. On a logical note, they should now explain to the people before it’s too late and will just find themselves being made scapegoats of those who committed and allowed the blunder at the head office.