MANILA — The Department of Public Works and Highways is escalating its enforcement action over construction at the controversial Taguig Lakeshore Complex, giving contractor A.M. Oreta & Co. Inc. five days to explain why it should not face sanctions after reports that work continued despite a government stop order.
The latest development places two A.M. Oreta contracts for multipurpose buildings in Lower Bicutan under scrutiny and adds another layer to the widening dispute over reclamation and infrastructure projects along the Taguig side of Laguna de Bay.
According to a Sept. 18 show-cause order obtained by Bilyonaryo, the DPWH Metro Manila 1st District Engineering Office directed A.M. Oreta to explain the reported continuation of construction at Lakeshore Complex Phases 4 and 7, despite a cease-and-desist order issued on Aug. 20.
If the alleged non-compliance is confirmed, DPWH warned that the contractor could face contract termination as well as possible administrative, civil or criminal proceedings.
But the agency has also emphasized an important procedural point: no violation has yet been established. The show-cause order gives A.M. Oreta an opportunity to respond before sanctions are imposed.
Five days to answer
The show-cause order reportedly gives A.M. Oreta five calendar days to explain why sanctions should not be imposed.
The immediate issue is whether construction actually continued after the Aug. 20 cease-and-desist order remained in force.
DPWH said it received reports on Sept. 18 that work was continuing at the affected sites.
That allegation is now the subject of the contractor’s required explanation.
The distinction is important: being ordered to show cause is not the same as being found liable.
Until DPWH evaluates A.M. Oreta’s response and determines whether the reported conduct occurred and violated the applicable contractual or government orders, termination remains a potential consequence rather than a final decision.
Why the Aug. 20 stop order was issued
The dispute traces back to a much broader government review of reclamation and infrastructure activity along the Taguig portion of Laguna de Bay.
DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon confirmed in August that his department had issued cease-and-desist orders covering projects connected to the disputed reclamation activities.
Dizon said the order was served on Aug. 20 following instructions from the Office of the President through the Philippine Reclamation Authority.
The Philippine Star reported that the order covered unauthorized reclamation activity along the Taguig waterfront and that the government wanted reclamation and related construction halted while the issues involving regulatory authority, environmental requirements and other concerns were addressed.
Dizon also said a meeting involving stakeholders, including Taguig City, the Laguna Lake Development Authority and other government agencies, had been called to discuss the situation.
PRA: About 30 hectares did not undergo its regulatory process
The controversy became more serious after the Philippine Reclamation Authority said its monitoring identified approximately 30 hectares across seven lots in Taguig that had not gone through the agency’s regulatory process.
PRA official Francisco Literal told GMA News that the reclamation projects identified by the agency did not pass through its regulatory procedures.
The agency also said it had issued a show-cause order to Taguig Mayor Lani Cayetano as early as October 2025 concerning reclamation activities in the city.
That does not by itself establish that every project in the area was illegal or that every contractor violated the law.
It does, however, explain why national agencies have intensified their review of construction activities around the Taguig lakeshore.
The projects under scrutiny
Earlier reporting identified several infrastructure projects in the area, including DPWH-funded flood-control and multipurpose facilities.
GMA News reported that projects included a multipurpose building at the Lakeshore Complex worth approximately ₱49.9 million, a Laguna Lakeshore improvement project worth about ₱94.1 million, and flood-mitigation projects at other phases of the development.
The projects have become part of a larger political and policy dispute over whether government-funded infrastructure in the area was properly planned, authorized and coordinated with the agencies responsible for Laguna de Bay.
Lacson claims ₱3.7 billion in projects
Senator Panfilo Lacson has been among the most vocal critics of the projects.
Lacson said his investigation identified at least ₱3.713 billion in completed, ongoing and suspended DPWH flood-control and multipurpose projects located along what he described as illegally reclaimed portions of the Taguig lakeshore.
He said the figure was based on official records and his team’s investigation and that the findings would be submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman.
The figure is an allegation from Lacson, not a final government or court determination that ₱3.713 billion was illegally spent.
PNA likewise reported Lacson’s claim that his team had identified 32 allegedly anomalous flood-control projects in Taguig.
Cayetano disputes the allegations
Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano, who has defended the Taguig Lakeshore development, has disputed allegations that the projects represent wasted public money.
Cayetano said Lakeshore had not been neglected or wasted and defended the development as intended for public use.
He also challenged Lacson to substantiate claims concerning allegedly wasted funds.
The dispute has therefore developed along two tracks.
One involves the regulatory and legal questions surrounding reclamation and construction.
The other is the political disagreement between Lacson and Cayetano over the projects and the use of public funds.
The DPWH’s latest action against A.M. Oreta, however, is more specific: it concerns whether a contractor complied with an active government stop order.
Why A.M. Oreta’s response matters
A.M. Oreta is an established Philippine construction company that describes itself as an AAAA general engineering and general building contractor.
Its own website lists decades of construction work and multiple ongoing and completed projects.
DPWH records also show A.M. Oreta participating in government infrastructure projects, including a 2024 flood-mitigation project in Rizal valued at more than ₱87.5 million.
That makes the current show-cause proceeding significant beyond the two Taguig projects.
If DPWH ultimately determines that the contractor knowingly continued work despite an enforceable government order, the consequences could extend beyond simply stopping the current construction.
But that determination has not yet been made.
What a show-cause order actually means
A show-cause order is essentially an opportunity to explain why a person or company should not face a proposed sanction.
It does not automatically mean the recipient has already been found guilty of an offense.
In this case, DPWH is seeking A.M. Oreta’s explanation before deciding what action, if any, should follow.
The contractor’s response could therefore become crucial to determining whether the reported continuation of construction resulted from an intentional decision, a misunderstanding of the order, an authorization from another party, or another circumstance.
Only after the agency evaluates the explanation can the next step be determined.
The bigger issue: Who authorized what?
The latest development raises a particularly important question in the Taguig Lakeshore controversy:
If a national government agency ordered construction to stop, on what basis could work allegedly continue?
That question is now part of the DPWH proceeding.
Bilyonaryo reported that DPWH is also seeking to determine whether anyone gave the contractor reason to believe it could continue construction despite the order.
That issue could become particularly important if A.M. Oreta argues that it was acting under instructions or authorization from another government entity or project stakeholder.
At present, the available reporting does not establish such an authorization.
Why Laguna de Bay reclamation has become a national issue
The Taguig controversy has grown beyond a dispute over individual buildings.
Laguna de Bay is a major water body within Metro Manila’s wider flood-management system, making activities that alter its shoreline or water-retention areas a significant government concern.
The Laguna Lake Development Authority has previously said that public consultation and required certificates or clearances are needed before construction can proceed in areas under its regulatory jurisdiction.
GMA News reported that LLDA General Manager Leopoldo Parumog said Taguig City had not coordinated with the agency regarding the projects identified in the investigation.
Government agencies are therefore examining not only individual construction contracts but also whether the appropriate regulatory procedures were followed before work began.
What happens next?
The immediate deadline is A.M. Oreta’s five-day response to the DPWH show-cause order.
From there, DPWH could determine whether the reported continuation of work actually occurred and whether it constituted a violation of the cease-and-desist order or contractual obligations.
Possible consequences identified by the agency include:
- Contract termination
- Administrative proceedings
- Civil action
- Criminal action
But these remain possible sanctions, not established outcomes.
The contractor’s explanation could also affect the agency’s eventual decision.
Meanwhile, the broader questions surrounding the Taguig Lakeshore reclamation remain unresolved, including the regulatory status of the reclaimed areas, the authorization of individual projects and whether public funds were properly used.
The question now hanging over the Lakeshore projects
The Taguig Lakeshore controversy began as a dispute over reclamation and infrastructure.
It has now reached a point where an individual contractor could potentially lose government contracts if DPWH confirms that construction continued despite an active stop order.
But the government has yet to make that finding.
For A.M. Oreta, the next five days could therefore be critical.
For DPWH, the issue is bigger than one contractor: a stop order is only effective if the government can enforce it.
And for the public, the unanswered questions remain just as important — who authorized the projects, whether the required regulatory procedures were followed, how public funds were spent, and what happens to the structures already built along the Taguig lakeshore.
Those questions are likely to keep the controversial Laguna de Bay development in the spotlight long after A.M. Oreta submits its explanation.
