Commentary: When Legislators Forget Their Lane—The Case of San Juanico and Governance Overreach

The recent press release from TINGOG Party-list regarding the San Juanico Bridge situation deserves more than a polite nod. It demands scrutiny—not because of the concern it expresses, but because of the confusion it perpetuates about the role of legislators in a government built on checks, balances, and technical mandates.

Legislators Are Not Executives

TINGOG is part of the legislative branch. Its job is to craft laws, appropriate budgets, and conduct oversight—not to lead project execution or act as the de facto crisis coordinator.

Yet, in their statement, TINGOG boldly claims that it "took the lead in mobilizing key interventions and coordinating with concerned agencies."

This raises serious questions:

  • Where is the leadership of the President or his Cabinet?

  • Where is the visibility and decisiveness of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)?

  • Why is a legislative group, with no executive mandate, organizing transport rerouting and port logistics?

Even if well-intentioned, such overreach blurs institutional roles and exposes structural weaknesses in agency responsiveness. In a functioning governance system, agencies like DPWH, NEDA, DILG, and LGUs should be empowered, funded, and held accountable to act swiftly—without relying on party-list groups to "take the lead."

When Lawmakers Act Like Executives, Systems Break Down

This isn’t an isolated incident—it’s part of a larger governance culture where legislators regularly:

  • Insert projects into the budget without comprehensive vetting

  • Dominate implementation and distribution of programs

  • Position themselves as engineers, logistics experts, or crisis managers

The San Juanico Bridge crisis is what happens when roles are ignored.

Imagine if…

  • DPWH operated independently, guided purely by engineering data and timelines. This agency is full of capable technocrats—trained to plan, assess, and act.

  • NEDA had full authority to recommend infrastructure priorities based on risk and economic need.

  • DBM allocated funds based on feasibility, readiness, and impact potential—not political lobbying.

  • Congress respected the process and focused on oversight, not micromanagement.

Bridge No. 2 could already be under construction today.

Politicians Should Not Lead Projects

A bridge is not just made of concrete—it is built on sound planning, stable governance, and technical foresight.

When politicians lead feasibility efforts and implementation logistics, they undermine:

  • Technical authority

  • Institutional independence

  • Long-term systems thinking

They perpetuate a system where everything depends on political access and nothing on professional process.

A Better Role for Lawmakers like TINGOG Partlyist Representatives

To be fair, the desire to help is not wrong. But help within the bounds of your constitutional role. Here's how TINGOG and other lawmakers can truly empower their constituents:

  • Use legislative power to demand DPWH accountability and transparency

  • Allocate budgets for a second San Juanico bridge through lawful channels

  • Enact a law that institutionalizes regional infrastructure auditing

  • Strengthen protections for engineers and planners from political interference

In short: lead through law, not logistics. Shape priorities through policy, not project execution.

Let Experts Lead

If we want to fix our broken infrastructure, it starts with respecting the rule of systems over personalities.

  • Let engineers design.

  • Let planners plan.

  • Let public agencies execute.

  • Let legislators legislate and provide oversight.

Because when everyone sticks to their lane, we build not just bridges, but a better-functioning republic.

If we continue this path—where political branding overrides bureaucratic function—we are not just building chaos… We are codifying it.