June 17, 2026 | Camarines Sur, Philippines
CAMARINES SUR — Questions over transparency and the use of provincial funds are now before the Office of the Ombudsman following a complaint filed by former Provincial Board Member Carlo Batalla, now Chairman of Crimes and Corruption Watch International (CCWI), against Camarines Sur Governor Luis Raymund “LRay” Villafuerte Jr., Vice Governor Sal Fortuno Jr., and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP).
The complaint centers on what CCWI describes as a lack of public disclosure concerning expenditures connected to the Kaogma Festival and other provincial government spending.
The controversy comes after the province’s recent Kaogma Festival celebrations, with CCWI questioning whether sufficient financial information has been made available to the public regarding the reported expenditures.
CCWI QUESTIONS REPORTED ₱75-MILLION KAOGMA BUDGET
In an interview on Doble Pasada of RMN DWNX Naga, Batalla said taxpayers have the right to know how public funds were allocated and spent.
CCWI cited two figures in particular:
- ₱75 million — reportedly allocated for the operation of the Kaogma Festival.
- ₱120 million — reportedly spent by the provincial government for rides and other equipment installed within the Provincial Capitol grounds during the festivities.
CCWI is calling for a detailed accounting of these expenditures, including the projects, contracts, procurement documents, suppliers, and actual amounts disbursed.
Batalla argued that information involving public expenditures should be accessible to citizens through the appropriate government disclosure mechanisms.
The organization’s concerns also come against the backdrop of Batalla’s previous public statements concerning Kaogma-related spending. In an April 2026 transparency update, CCWI discussed a separate historical case involving a ₱18.93-million transfer to Camsur Kaogma Foundation, Inc., which Batalla said had previously been questioned before the Ombudsman. CCWI further stated that the Commission on Audit had flagged the transactions.
FIRST COMPLAINT FILED IN MAY
According to CCWI, Batalla initially filed a complaint on May 14, 2026, naming Governor Villafuerte, Bids and Awards Committee Chairperson Janis Ian Regaspi-Cleofe, and Hernanie Morales of the Information, Communications, Archives and Records Management Office.
The complaint reportedly focused on alleged shortcomings in the disclosure of provincial government expenditures.
The issue later expanded to the legislative branch of the provincial government.
CCWI ALSO QUESTIONS RESPONSE OF PROVINCIAL BOARD
On May 21, Batalla sent a formal communication to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan requesting action on what CCWI described as possible compliance issues involving transparency and full disclosure.
The organization sought, among other measures, a resolution requiring concerned provincial offices to comply with applicable disclosure requirements and a review of the Provincial Local Government Unit’s compliance.
CCWI said that on June 1, the majority of the provincial board, under Vice Governor Sal Fortuno Jr., issued a collective response acknowledging Batalla’s letter but, according to CCWI, did not undertake the investigation or other action requested.
Batalla subsequently returned to the Ombudsman and included Fortuno and several members of the provincial board in his complaint, according to CCWI.
Two opposition members, Atty. Awel Llaguno and JJ Pilapil, were reportedly excluded from the complaint.
CCWI has also called for preventive suspension of the officials named in the complaint while the matter is being investigated. Any such action, however, would be subject to the determination of the appropriate government authority.
PROVINCIAL BOARD OFFICIAL DEFENDS ADMINISTRATION
The provincial administration, meanwhile, has disputed the characterization that the Capitol lacks transparency.
During the same RMN DWNX Naga program, SP Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Señar responded to Batalla’s allegations.
Señar argued that additional action from the provincial board was unnecessary because Governor Villafuerte had already responded to the transparency concerns.
He also pointed to the provincial government’s history of receiving government recognition for governance and financial administration.
The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) explains that the former Seal of Good Housekeeping program focused on areas including local legislation, development planning, resource generation and resource allocation. It was later upgraded into the Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG), which includes financial administration, including adherence to accounting and auditing standards and compliance with the Full Disclosure Policy.
Señar cited the provincial government’s awards as evidence of its governance record, while CCWI maintains that awards or recognition do not remove the need for disclosure of specific transactions and expenditures.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The dispute now moves to the question of whether the documents and financial records requested by CCWI will be produced and whether the Ombudsman will find sufficient grounds to proceed with the allegations.
At the center of the controversy is the reported ₱195 million in combined Kaogma-related spending cited by CCWI.
The figures and allegations raised by the watchdog organization remain subject to verification through official government records, procurement documents, accounting records and the proceedings before the appropriate authorities.
For the public, the key questions remain straightforward:
How much was actually spent?
Where did the funds go?
Who were the contractors and suppliers?
What procurement and disbursement documents support the expenditures?
And have all required financial disclosures been made available to the public?
As the complaint proceeds, the answers to these questions—and the documentary records supporting them—are expected to determine the next chapter in the growing transparency dispute involving the Camarines Sur Provincial Government.
This report presents the allegations of CCWI and the response attributed to provincial board officials. The filing of a complaint does not by itself establish liability, and the officials named remain entitled to due process and the opportunity to respond.