Analysts are calling for change cautiously as ICI awaits Marcos’s decision with fate

By Chloe Mari A. Hufana, A reporter

PHILIPPINES, President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. The possible withdrawal of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) need not weaken the government’s anti-corruption campaign if its work is taken over by watchdogs permanently, political analysts said, as the body awaits its conclusion after submitting its 125-day report to Malacañang on Feb.

Special commissions such as the ICI are designed to be temporary responses to emergency governance failures, Ederson DT. Tapia, a professor of political science at the University of Makati, said in a Facebook Messenger chat. Their job, he added, is to gather evidence, point out the system’s weaknesses and recommend changes that should go through the commission itself.

“The downgrading of ICI is not inherently problematic, as long as its activities are not simply abandoned but are deliberately devolved and strengthened within existing accountability institutions,” he said. BusinessWorld.

Created by Executive Order No. 94 in September, ICI marked the first concrete step of Mr. Marcos in his anti-corruption campaign following his revelation of corruption in flood control projects during his fourth speech to Congress in July.

The President accused senior officials and private contractors of conspiring to deliver substandard or non-existent infrastructure in a country that is highly vulnerable to climate hazards.

The commission was tasked with evaluating infrastructure projects over the past decade, making it one of the most comprehensive fact-finding agencies created under the Marcos administration.

It was originally composed of former Supreme Court Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. as chairman, and Public Works Secretary Rogelio L. Singson and former Audit Commissioner Rossana A. Fajardo as members.

Mr. Singson and Ms. Fajardo resigned in December, saying that their work was done. Their departure left the commission with Mr. Only Reyes, Executive Director Brian Keith F. Hosaka and Special Counsel Rodolfo S. Azurin, Jr.

Mr. Azurin later said that the lack of a quorum hinders the work of the ICI, especially its ability to vote on the transfer of cases involving wrongful infrastructure projects to prosecutorial and investigative agencies.

‘MISSING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY’
Gary G. Ador Dionisio, dean of De La Salle-College of St. Benilde’s School of Diplomacy and Governance, said the commission would have been like a “signature governance change” if it had been showing transparency and institutional stability from the beginning.

“Instead, the resignation has left ICI in a state of emergency,” he said via Messenger.

To stay relevant, Mr. Dionisio said, the commission would have to evolve beyond the narrow mandate to find the truth and become a strategic reform tool that strengthens transparency, accountability and the overall creation of public infrastructure governance.

“Simply downgrading or shutting down ICI without increasing its key outputs means that this government is in danger of missing another opportunity to pursue meaningful reforms in the public sector,” he said.

Both analysts warned that shutting down the commission without strengthening oversight bodies could increase public skepticism, fueling perceptions that accountability efforts are anecdotal and related to political pressure rather than governance.

An important question, mr. Tapia said, what happened after ICI finished its work.

If the findings are fully integrated with permanent bodies such as the Office of the Ombudsman, the Audit Commission and other high-level monitoring bodies – combined with increased investigative and follow-up powers – the closure of the commission could strengthen wider anti-corruption efforts.

“In that case, the commission becomes a facilitator of institutional reform rather than an interventionist,” said Mr. Tapia. “The danger arises if the commission is dismantled without strengthening these important institutions.”

From an administrative point of view, temporary commissions should serve as diagnostic tools, he added, while permanent institutions provide an enforcement backbone that works consistently across all administrative regions. Long-term public trust, he said, depends less on effective teams and more on robust systems that deliver accountability regardless of political cycles.

ICI’s success should not be measured by how long it lasts but by whether it leaves behind strong and robust monitoring systems, said Mr. Tapia.

Palace Press chief Clarissa A. Castro previously said Mr. Marcos will leave it to the remaining members of the ICI to decide whether the body will continue its investigation or begin to conclude its work.

At the same time, lawmakers in both houses 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 like the ICI. Mr. Marcos urged the law enforcement to prioritize these measures.

The commission presented its 125-day report in Malacañang on Friday, detailing its work since September 2025.

ICI filed nine applications with the Office of the Ombudsman involving 65 people and coordinated the referral of 66 others to the Department of Justice for immigration enforcement orders, it said in its report.

In its investigation into the inadequacy of flood control systems, it held 32 hearings with 36 witnesses including senators, congressmen and heads of organizations, and inspected 16 locations across the country.

The commission also reported on the suspension of 6,692 bank accounts and the seizure, 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 about 160 investigative communications, including subpoenas and subpoenas.

As part of its transparency efforts, ICI said it has issued guidelines for live streaming its proceedings.

Mr. Marcos is expected to decide on the commission’s future after reviewing the report, although Malacañang has not yet said whether the President has done so.