“A commission investigating powerful interests must be stronger than the forces pushing against it”
WHEN the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) was launched on Sept. 11, it was hailed as a bold move toward accountability – a body charged with investigating billions in questionable flood-control and infrastructure spending.
It was meant to reassure a frustrated public that government was serious about cleaning up the mess.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. created the ICI as a fact-finding body mandated to investigate alleged corruption, irregularities, and misuse of funds in government flood control and related projects within the last 10 years, amid mounting concerns that have eroded public trust.
The President said the move was in line with his administration’s commitment to uphold honesty and integrity in public service, consistent with the Constitutional mandate that public office is a public trust.
“The Administration is firmly committed to maintaining honesty and integrity in public service, and will take decisive measures to repress and hold accountable government officials and employees, and any other individual, who engage in graft, corrupt practices, or other acts that undermine the national interest and betray the people’s trust,” the President said in a six-page Executive Order.
Under the EO, the ICI would be composed of a Chairperson and two Members “of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.” A Secretariat headed by an Executive Director with the rank of Undersecretary was mandated to provide administrative and technical support.
Under the EO, the ICI was mandated to investigate, receive, gather, and evaluate evidence, intelligence reports, and information on irregularities in government flood control and infrastructure projects.
The ICI was also tasked to conduct hearings, take testimony, and issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and production of documents necessary for its investigations.
But today, observers of the political scene say after the resignations of two of its most credible members, that confidence is rapidly eroding.
Benjamin “Benjie” Magalong was the first to walk away, just weeks into the job.
His resignation letter did not mince words: “recent developments” had cast doubt on the Commission’s independence.
Observers remark that that alone should have triggered introspection at the highest levels – because independence is not optional in oversight work but the basis of legitimacy.
Then came Rogelio “Babes” Singson – former DPWH secretary, a man seen publicly as with deep experience in the very sector the ICI aims to investigate.
Officially, the reason given was age and stress – until Dec. 15 and may be extended to yearend.
But underneath the surface, political observers point to internal dissatisfaction over structure and process. When respected professionals begin to question how a commission is operating – and choose to disassociate from it — the credibility crisis becomes undeniable.
Two early departures.
Two blows to public trust.
Two red flags that cannot be ignored.
A commission investigating powerful interests must be stronger than the forces pushing against it. Instead, what we are seeing is an institution already buckling before the real battles have even begun.
Every resignation sends the message that insiders lack confidence – not only in the ICI’s direction, but in its ability to withstand political pressures.
That is where the deeper danger lies: the fear that the ICI, created by the Executive, could be repurposed or weaponized.
Observers chorus selective accountability is not accountability – it is politics dressed up as reform.
And ad hoc bodies, by design, lack the permanence and insulation required to resist political influence.
Observers ask, if the ICI is losing integrity before it gains momentum, then what future does it have when investigations reach the highest offices?
If those appointed to uphold truth feel they cannot do so freely, how can the public believe in the truth the ICI produces?
And most importantly: What is the point of a watchdog that cannot protect itself?
The country does not need another symbolic panel.
What it needs is a permanent institution – backed by clear law, operational transparency, and digital tracking of public projects – one that cannot be easily shaken by politics or personalities.
The ICI’s fate remains undecided. But it can still regain credibility – but only through decisive reforms that strengthen independence, clarify mandate, and ensure that those who serve are empowered rather than constrained.
Absent that, the ICI risks becoming yet another footnote in our long struggle against corruption: a well-promoted idea that failed to deliver justice.
Watchdogs must bark.
They must bite.
And most of all, they must remain standing.
Right now, the ICI is wobbling – and the public deserves to know why.
