MPB · Multi-purpose building allocations

MPB review flags · overview

These are different review queues, not a single corruption score. Bars show each count against its stated denominator; categories can overlap and should not be added together. A flag is a prompt for human review, not a finding.

Location checks

Boundary checks appear first. Each bar uses its own stated denominator; location flags are review leads and do not show that a project is misplaced or duplicated.

MPB locations · same-site funding and separate-site review

22 of 819 historical comparison pairs have usable coordinates at both ends. 1,711 of 5,765 HGAB MPB entries have usable printed points. Pairs under 50 meters are reviewed as likely references to the same site. The question is whether allocations cover legitimate continuation, different components, or repeated funding of the same work. Pair counts describe allocations, not a verified inventory of distinct buildings.

Printed coordinates outside the named municipality

145 of 1,215 coordinate-bearing entries with qualified title locations plot outside their named municipality outline. These are leads for checking the source schedule, not evidence of a false location. 496 entries could not be matched to a municipal polygon or qualified place.

Sorted by approximate distance beyond the municipality boundary. The title, raw printed point, and source row locator are shown for each candidate.

Download all coordinate/title review candidates as JSON. Distances use local projected approximations from the printed coordinate to the nearest municipal boundary.

HGAB 3rd · same-barangay location pairs

Table: 95 coordinate-ready pairs, nearest first. Unknown distances remain in the chart, download and historical comparison table.

Coordinate and needs-screening methodology

Haversine great-circle separation, radius 6,371,008.8 meters, between one unambiguous decimal point per title. Latitude/longitude order inferred only from nonoverlapping local screening ranges (4–22 latitude, 116–127 longitude), recorded per point. At least four decimal places required. No geocoding, centroid substitution, nearest-coordinate join or coordinate borrowing from other rows/stages.

• Printed points are not verified building footprints. Identical or nearby coordinates can be rounded, copied or reference a barangay center. Decimal precision is not positional accuracy.
• Under-50-meter pairs are interpreted as likely same-site references for scope review. They are not counted as two confirmed buildings. Site identity requires maps, asset IDs, designs or field verification; nearby plots can contain different structures.
• Municipality containment uses qualified title locations and the archived DPWH ArcGIS municipal boundary layer. Outside points are review candidates: title parsing, printed coordinates or boundaries may be wrong, and no barangay boundary layer was available.
• A same-barangay identity requires agreement at barangay, municipality and province levels. Matching city wording without a qualified hierarchy is separately marked unverified.
• One MPB per barangay is a needs-screening hypothesis, not a validated entitlement rule. Different functions, population, capacity, accessibility and hazard exposure may justify multiple facilities.
• Historical completion/repair allocations can fund the same legitimate building in successive years. A short distance does not establish two separate buildings or duplicate payment.
• Farther points can support a separate-site interpretation but do not establish need. The 50/100/250/1000-meter bins are descriptive review bands, not corruption thresholds.
• Pairs are not distinct projects; a cluster of three items yields three pairs. Do not sum pair allocations as losses.

Download every distance, raw coordinate pair, place-evidence status and source locator. Tables export all displayed rows as CSV.

What this page measures

This page covers the BIP multi-purpose buildings/facilities PAP, including records named as evacuation centers. Category membership follows the parsed PAP, not a keyword search across every DPWH program. Titles, pages and amounts are retained from the current comparison.

Potential insertions have no plausible NEP counterpart identified by the current matching. They are review candidates, not certified new amendments. Ambiguous matches are separate. Budget amounts are appropriations, not expenditures or personal receipts; no finding establishes misconduct.

Download complete analysis JSON · Full DPWH comparison and matching methodology

Supporting methodology and limitations

• Insertion screening uses the same current native NEP/HGAB occurrence matching as the DPWH HGAB page. FAPs are excluded from domestic insertion candidates. A selected one-to-one counterpart is required for an allocation adjustment; approximate title similarity alone does not establish one.
• Removal candidates are unpaired NEP records in this exact PAP. An absent selected link is not proof of deletion. Changes in wording, office, scope or aggregation can hide counterparts.
• Repeat comparisons are FY2027 NEP versus available prior-year enacted GAA. The same NEP project can appear in multiple comparison years: comparison pairs and distinct proposals are different denominators. HGAB retention follows selected links; a missing link is not a confirmed removal.
• Directions, tranches and explicit chainage remain part of the inherited repeat screen. Repeated building names do not establish duplicate components or paid work. Barangay/town/province homonyms require qualified geographic evidence.
• Building types are a simple title-based descriptive split. Other/unspecified includes mixed uses and titles without clear purpose. Equal allocation amounts are not equal unit costs: floor area, design, quantities and site conditions are unavailable.
• Office totals are administrative allocations, not legislative district totals. Names in project tables come from existing strict PH location DB attribution; blank cells mean unresolved or shared coverage. No name determines screening eligibility.
• Graphs reflect the current table filters. Ranked project and office graphs show up to 12 rows; table counts and CSV include all filtered rows. Repeat graphs count all filtered comparison pairs by retention status. No hypothesis test or corruption probability is inferred from these descriptive plots.

Request original-page adjudication, approved designs, floor areas, bills of quantities, contracts, project completion and disbursement records before drawing conclusions. MPB findings overlap the full DPWH insertion and repeat findings; their amounts must not be added together.

Sources and reproducibility

Local FY2027 NEP DPWH baseline; HB 10858 3rd-reading Volume I-C; native comparison/removal records; historical GAA repeat screen; PH location DB strict attribution. Analysis JSON records each input filename and SHA256. Source pages are listed per project. All monetary exports contain numeric pesos.