By Nimfa L. Estrellado-Laurino Mulanay Councilor Angelo Telada Amisola points to sections of the Mulanay-San Francisco Road undergoing rehab...
 |
| Mulanay Councilor Angelo Telada Amisola points to sections of the Mulanay-San Francisco Road undergoing rehabilitation as he questions the prioritization of the project. (Gelo Telada Amisola) |
MULANAY, Quezon - Questions over how government road funds are prioritized have moved to the center of the Mulanay road controversy, with Councilor Gelo Telada Amisola maintaining that residents still want answers despite the technical explanation issued by the Department of Public Works and Highways. DPWH Quezon 3rd District Engineering Office, meanwhile, stands by its finding that pavement defects justified the rehabilitation of selected sections of the Mulanay-San Francisco Road.
The disputed works cover selected portions of almost 500 meters under a ₱19.58-million preventive maintenance project involving an 80-millimeter asphalt overlay and concrete re-blocking. DPWH said validation identified longitudinal and transverse cracks and settlement between adjoining concrete slabs that had to be addressed before the asphalt overlay could be applied.
Amisola said in a phone patch interview that his concern centers on whether the project should have been prioritized over roads already suffering more serious deterioration. He said residents continue to seek clearer answers on how road projects are ranked for rehabilitation.
The controversy began after Amisola posted a video on Aug. 13 questioning why pavement that appeared relatively new, roadworthy and passable was being removed. DPWH later issued a formal response explaining the scope and technical basis of the work.
DPWH Quezon 3rd DEO Officer-in-Charge Michael Rosaria said the project is primarily an asphalt overlay, with concrete re-blocking limited to selected sections requiring pavement repair. He said the concrete base must be sufficiently stable before the new asphalt layer can be placed.
“It’s an asphalt overlay project at may longitudinal cracks na yung road section at ang rehabilitation project diyan ay dumaan sa coordination meeting ng local government unit ng Mulanay,” Rosaria said. “Pag may longitudinal cracks ang road ay kailangan na matibay ang base natin.”
According to the district office, transverse and longitudinal cracks measuring about 19.05 millimeters, or three-fourths of an inch, were recorded together with settlement exceeding 6.35 millimeters between adjoining slabs. Photographs showing the pavement conditions were attached to Rosaria’s formal response to Amisola dated Sept. 7.
Rosaria maintained that the documented pavement conditions provided the engineering basis for determining which portions required re-blocking. He disputed Amisola’s initial observation that the sections being removed remained in good condition.
“The attached photographs and actual site condition serve as the basis for determining the appropriate pavement repair and re-blocking works,” Rosaria said. “This is contrary to your observation that the ‘before’ photographs, with date stamp Aug. 13, 2026, show longitudinal cracks that were sealed with asphalt sealant.”
The district office cited Department Order No. 200, Series of 2025, which sets guidelines for identifying, validating and funding road sections proposed for re-blocking. DPWH said the policy requires proposed sections to undergo technical assessment before they are included for rehabilitation.
The project was also discussed during a July 13 coordination meeting at the Mulanay mayor’s office, where Engr. Juan Paulo Monilla, chief of the district Construction Section, presented infrastructure projects scheduled in the municipality. The presentation included the planned 80-millimeter asphalt overlay on selected portions of the Mulanay-San Francisco Road.
Amisola acknowledged that DPWH had already issued its technical explanation but said constituents were asking a separate question about project priority. He said residents wanted to know why sections they regarded as relatively serviceable were being rehabilitated while more severely damaged roads remained in need of repair.
“The question raised by our constituents is, in essence, a simple one. Why prioritize removing and replacing sections of roads that are still in relatively good condition when there are roads that are already severely damaged and urgently in need of repair?” Amisola said.
Amisola also said he had been instructed to refrain from making further statements and that individuals had approached him about deleting the video from his social media accounts. He did not identify who issued the instruction or who made the request, leaving their identities and affiliations unspecified.
Amisola said he raised the issue to represent constituents seeking answers rather than to attack DPWH or any individual connected with the project. He maintained that public discussion should remain focused on accountability, transparency and the use of government resources.
“I have no intention of attacking or maligning any individual or institution. My only intention has been to ensure that the concerns of the people are heard and that legitimate questions are given clear and satisfactory answers,” Amisola said.
.jpg)
No comments