Estimated Allocations by Congressional District

Ranking coverage and location exclusions

Strict attribution covers 8,558/16,275 source lines (52.6%) and 37.7% of extracted allocation value. The remaining money is excluded from strict LEG rankings, not missing from the budget.

District totals are evidence-supported lower coverage totals, not complete receipts or amounts sponsored by representatives. Offices are not legislative seats. Homonymous places require parent and geographic level; multi-place routes cannot be allocated to one LEG without segment evidence. The ₱1.2B Butuan/RTR project is a confirmed multi-place exclusion, not a Butuan-only allocation.

Before comparing districts, measure each district’s unresolved coverage using project locations and dated boundaries. Province splits, current versus historical names, shared DEOs and school names can all change eligibility for attribution. No concentration test is reliable while missing attribution differs by district.

All districts · estimated allocations, roles and reference comparisons

How to read this: Each row shows projects we could confidently place in one congressional district. The budget is proposed government spending in that area; it is not money paid to its representative. Possible additions are HGAB projects without a selected NEP match. A missing match still needs source review.

All 254 district rows in the local roster use the same strict HGAB attribution rules. Party-list representatives have no geographic LEG district in this view. The committee filter uses mapped elected Appropriations Committee members. Any district can be selected as a comparison value. Committee identities that conflict with the local representative roster stay unresolved. The numbered committee list does not establish absence of ex-officio membership. A reference value is a comparison point, not a normal budget, a legal threshold or a finding of wrongdoing. Districts with no accepted attribution remain in the table; zero accepted lines does not establish zero funding.

254 district rows · initial ranking by budget for possible added projects.

Insertion amounts are part of HGAB totals, not extra money to add to those totals. Increase amounts are deltas on selected retained lines, not insertion allocations. Missing/shared locations are excluded. Insertion share uses only strictly attributed HGAB amounts; incomplete coverage can distort comparisons. Undefined shares sort last and are excluded from numeric reference comparisons.

The existing all-district potential-additions view provides the underlying project lists and source pages.

How districts enter this comparison

Project location and scope determine attribution. The same source, location and NEP/HGAB matching rules apply to every district. Representative names and sourced roles are added after the allocation totals are calculated; they do not change project inclusion, matching or amounts. No person is assigned a special baseline or risk score.

The default view includes all district rows. Rankings follow only the budget metric, order and filters shown above; ties use district name order. The graph shows the first 12 filtered districts for budget/count metrics, or all eligible filtered districts for the share plot. No district is selected automatically for the optional comparison. Committee and majority/minority filters describe the sourced roster and do not establish influence over an allocation.

Committee roster and relevant roles

Official House Appropriations roster, indexed snapshot retrieved 2026-10-11: 136 numbered entries, 134 distinct names, 103 mapped geographic district identities. Repeated names retain both observed roles and are counted once per district. Unmatched identities, party-list representatives and ex-officio membership are not assigned invented district totals. Download the sourced roster and identity decisions.

Role labels are descriptive. A roster title alone does not establish political alignment. The current roster is not a certified historical snapshot at the HGAB reading. The committee filter uses mapped elected members; comparison districts can be chosen from the full roster. Missing geographic attribution and representative-roster conflicts remain visible.

Highest mapped elected committee-member allocation: Butuan · Lone District · ₱4,615,982,000. Highest allocation outside the recovered numbered roster: Ilocos Norte · 1st District · ₱5,016,900,000. Outside this roster does not certify non-membership.

Committee members with the smallest estimated budgets

Ten lowest positive strictly attributed DPWH allocations; zero-match districts are reported separately. Teal = majority or unspecified role; orange = explicitly listed minority role. This is descriptive geographic coverage, not a test of favoritism.

Compare official majority and minority roles

Only two territorial district identities mapped to explicitly listed minority roles. Other minority entries are not given territorial totals without an accepted district identity. This small, incomplete sample cannot establish whether political alignment explains allocations. Majority/minority is a House role designation, not a verified opposition label. Comparisons cover DPWH only, and attribution is incomplete; no causal inference or significance claim is made.

No accepted geographic attribution for 21 mapped committee districts: Agusan del Norte · Lone District; Batangas · 1st District; Batangas · 6th District; Bohol · 3rd District; Bulacan · 2nd District; Bulacan · 3rd District; Bulacan · 5th District; Cebu · 6th District; Davao del Sur · Lone District; Iloilo · 5th District; Leyte · 4th District; Leyte · 5th District; Makati · 1st District; Makati · 2nd District; Marikina · 1st District; Quezon City · 1st District; Quezon City · 2nd District; Quezon City · 6th District; Quezon · 1st District; Southern Leyte · 1st District; Taguig–Pateros · Lone District. These are unresolved funding coverage, not proven zero budgets. Use the classification, coverage, bloc and smallest-first filters above to inspect all rows; CSV exports include roles.

FY2027 bicameral participation

No FY2027 appointed conferee roster verified in the official sources searched as of 2026-10-11. The official House statement discusses opening bicam proceedings, but does not identify an appointed delegation. Membership in a different body or participation in a prior-year conference does not establish participation in the FY2027 bicam. Record the formal designation and its date before adding a bicam role.

Available House leadership labels are descriptive, do not affect rankings, and are not a complete leadership roster. They are sourced separately from the official House leaders page, indexed snapshot retrieved 2026-10-11. This is not a certified roster at the HGAB reading date. Download sourced role labels, identity mappings and date limits. Geographic allocation does not identify who proposed, approved, received or controlled funds.

Party-list representatives · organizations and verified roles

Party-list organizations represent a national constituency rather than one geographic congressional district. This separate roster provides identity and role context; it does not estimate project allocations for these organizations.

Official House member index · indexed records retrieved 2026-10-11. Download the recovered roster, sources and methodology.

Coverage: This is a partial recovered roster, not a certified list of all current members. Search-index gaps and changes in membership can affect coverage. Explicitly inactive records are labelled separately. Every row shows the base representative designation. Additional leadership or committee roles appear only where sourced. The additional-role filter concerns those extra roles; it does not determine whether the person is a representative. Roles reflect the recovered source snapshots, not a certified roster at the HGAB reading date. Missing roles mean unverified. Membership or office does not establish project authorship, receipts or control.

Reported family relationships come from PCIJ’s dated research and its accompanying directory. The relationship column retains the source’s district and kinship descriptions. It establishes neither project sponsorship nor control of district funds. Missing entries are unresolved, not proof of no relationship.

Matching method: Organization labels require an explicit party-list designation. Role enrichment requires exact official full-name tokens after punctuation and accent normalization; surname-only and fuzzy joins are excluded. No geographic district totals are assigned.