“The ICI will only succeed if it is pushed, watched, and prodded by the public it claims to serve”
The Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) was created this week in response to public outrage over corruption in flood control and other major infrastructure projects.
Former Supreme Court Justice Andres Reyes Jr., ex-Public Works Secretary Rogelio “Babes” Singson, and finance expert Rossana Fajardo were appointed as members, with Baguio Mayor Benjamin Magalong serving as adviser.
This model recalls earlier commissions formed during moments of crisis.
The Agrava Commission of 1983, convened by Ferdinand Marcos Sr. after the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. was granted investigative powers but became a study in political compromise.
Justice Corazon Agrava’s minority report cleared military chief Fabian Ver, while the majority concluded Aquino was killed by a military conspiracy.
The split highlighted the futility of truth-seeking under authoritarian rule, where political preservation outweighed justice.
In the democratic transition, President Corazon Aquino faced repeated military uprisings and created the Davide Commission in 1990.
Led by Hilario Davide Jr., later appointed Chief Justice, it investigated coup attempts and found that discontent stemmed from corruption, inequities in promotions, and the politicization of the armed forces.
Though it recommended reforms, implementation was limited.
Over a decade later, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo confronted the Oakwood Mutiny of 2003, staged by young officers of the Magdalo group.
She created the Feliciano Commission, chaired by Justice Florentino Feliciano. Its hearings revealed systemic corruption in military procurement and deep frustrations within the ranks. Yet like Davide’s body, it produced insights without lasting institutional change.
A more ambitious experiment came in 2010 with the Philippine Truth Commission, created by President Benigno Aquino III and directed at high-level corruption during the Arroyo presidency.
The NBN-ZTE broadband deal involved a $329 million contract with China’s ZTE Corporation that collapsed after revelations of bribery implicating top officials, including the First Gentleman.
The fertilizer fund scam saw ₱728 million intended for farmers allegedly diverted to Arroyo’s 2004 campaign, with overpriced or non-existent procurements masking the diversion.
The Truth Commission, headed by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, sought to weave these scandals into a comprehensive account of systemic corruption.
It aimed not only to recommend prosecutions but also to create a moral record of wrongdoing, a truth-telling exercise meant to restore public faith in institutions.
Yet its life was cut short when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, ruling that it violated the equal protection clause by singling out one administration. This decision crippled the Commission before it could fulfill its mandate.
Our experience with investigative Commissions shows their recurring limits.
Agrava exposed how authoritarianism distorted truth-seeking.
Davide and Feliciano diagnosed unrest but lacked teeth.
The Truth Commission was the boldest, yet it was derailed by legal and political obstacles.
More than the ICI, what is more decisive in addressing corruption is the President’s appointment of the Ombudsman.
In this regard, the Judicial and Bar Council should disregard complaints filed against Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla in considering his application for Ombudsman.
These complaints are filed in bad faith, specifically intended to prevent Secretary Remulla from being considered for the post.
I am not supporting Remulla’s application, but if these are given due course, a bad precedent is set.
Any nomination and application for a position the JBC needs to consider can easily be torpedoed by such complaints.
Going back to the ICI, it could easily follow the fate of its predecessors: a burst of publicity, a thick final report, and then silence.
To avoid this, the Commission must embrace transparency and participation.
Hearings should be public and live-streamed.
Civil society groups, communities, and independent experts must be allowed to scrutinize evidence.
Citizen audits of infrastructure projects should be institutionalized. Whistleblowers should be protected and encouraged.
Transparency is not just about publishing documents; it is about creating spaces where citizens can see, question, and challenge the Commission’s work.
Without such safeguards, it risks becoming another paper tiger, roaring loudly at the start but silenced when the powerful push back.
On Sept. 21, Filipinos plan marches and rallies against alleged corruption in flood-control projects, coinciding with Martial Law’s anniversary.
Demonstrations are set at Luneta and the People Power Monument.
These mass actions matter.
They remind us that vigilance cannot be outsourced to Commissions alone.
The ICI will only succeed if it is pushed, watched, and prodded by the public it claims to serve.
Commissions can start the work of truth-seeking, but only the people can finish it.
Facebook, X, Instagram, and BlueSky: tonylavs
Website: tonylavina.com
