By Chloe Mari A. Hufana, Reporter
PHILIPPINE President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.’s possible move to wind down the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) need not weaken the government’s anti-corruption drive if its work is absorbed by permanent oversight institutions, political analysts said, as the body awaits its fate after submitting its 125-day report to Malacañang on Feb. 6.
Special commissions such as the ICI are designed to be temporary responses to urgent governance failures, Ederson DT. Tapia, a political science professor at the University of Makati, said in a Facebook Messenger chat. Their role, he added, is to gather evidence, expose systemic weaknesses and recommend reforms that should outlast the commission itself.
“Winding down the ICI is not inherently problematic, provided that its functions are not simply discontinued but are deliberately transferred and strengthened within existing accountability institutions,” he told BusinessWorld.
Created through Executive Order No. 94 in September, the ICI marked Mr. Marcos’ first concrete step in his anti-graft drive following his exposé of corruption in flood control projects during his fourth address to Congress in July.
The President accused senior officials and private contractors of colluding to deliver substandard or even nonexistent infrastructure in a country highly vulnerable to climate risks.
The commission was tasked to examine infrastructure projects over the past decade, making it one of the most wide-ranging fact-finding bodies formed under the Marcos administration.
It was initially composed of former Supreme Court Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. as chairman, with former Public Works Secretary Rogelio L. Singson and former Commission on Audit Commissioner Rossana A. Fajardo as members.
Mr. Singson and Ms. Fajardo resigned in December, saying their roles had been completed. Their departure left the commission with only Mr. Reyes, Executive Director Brian Keith F. Hosaka and Special Adviser Rodolfo S. Azurin, Jr.
Mr. Azurin later said the lack of a quorum hampered the ICI’s work, particularly its ability to vote on referrals of cases involving anomalous infrastructure projects to prosecutorial and investigative agencies.
‘MISSING ANOTHER CHANCE’Gary G. Ador Dionisio, dean of De La Salle-College of St. Benilde’s School of Diplomacy and Governance, said the commission could have stood as a “signature governance reform” had it consistently demonstrated transparency and institutional stability from the outset.
“Instead, the resignations left the ICI in something like an intensive care state,” he said via Messenger.
To remain relevant, Mr. Dionisio said, the commission would have needed to evolve beyond a narrow fact-finding mandate and into a strategic reform instrument that strengthens transparency, accountability and the overall architecture of public infrastructure governance.
“Simply winding down or closing the ICI without maximizing its key findings means this administration risks missing another chance to pursue meaningful public sector reforms,” he said.
Both analysts warned that shutting down the commission without reinforcing core watchdog agencies could deepen public skepticism, feeding perceptions that accountability efforts are episodic and tied to political pressure rather than embedded in the state’s governance framework.
The central question, Mr. Tapia said, is what happens after the ICI completes its mandate.
If its findings are fully integrated into permanent bodies such as the Office of the Ombudsman, Commission on Audit and other executive oversight agencies — coupled with added investigative capacity and follow-through — the commission’s closure could still strengthen the broader anti-corruption effort.
“In that scenario, the commission becomes a catalyst for institutional reform rather than a stand-alone intervention,” Mr. Tapia said. “The risk arises if the commission is wound down without corresponding strengthening of these core institutions.”
From a governance perspective, temporary commissions should function as diagnostic tools, he added, while permanent institutions provide the enforcement backbone that operates consistently across administrations. Long-term public trust, he said, depends less on high-profile task forces and more on durable systems that deliver accountability regardless of political cycles.
The ICI’s success should be measured not by how long it exists but by whether it leaves behind stronger and more resilient oversight mechanisms, Mr. Tapia said.
Palace Press Officer Clarissa A. Castro earlier said Mr. Marcos would leave it to the remaining members of the ICI to decide whether the body would continue its investigations or begin winding up its operations.
At the same time, lawmakers in both chambers of Congress are pushing bills to establish an Independent People’s Commission, an effort aimed at institutionalizing oversight mechanisms and ensuring continuity beyond ad hoc bodies such as the ICI. Mr. Marcos has urged legislators to prioritize these measures.
The commission submitted its 125-day accomplishment report to Malacañang on Friday, detailing its work since operations began in September 2025.
The ICI filed nine referrals with the Office of the Ombudsman involving 65 people and coordinated the referral of 66 others to the Department of Justice for immigration lookout bulletin orders, it said in its report.
In its probe of irregularities in flood control projects, it conducted 32 hearings with 36 witnesses including senators, congressmen and agency heads, and carried out 16 site inspections nationwide.
The commission also reported contributing to the freezing of 6,692 bank accounts and the preservation, seizure or surrender of assets worth P24.7 billion, based on data from the Anti-Money Laundering Council. It processed more than 1,000 documents and issued roughly 160 investigative communications, including subpoenas and official invitations.
As part of its transparency efforts, the ICI said it issued guidelines for livestreaming its proceedings.
Mr. Marcos is expected to decide on the commission’s future after reviewing the report, though Malacañang has yet to say whether the President has already done so.
