MANILA, Philippines — The government’s high-profile effort to probe infrastructure corruption has come under sharp scrutiny from within its own ranks, with Vice President Sara Duterte casting doubt on the genuine purpose of the newly formed Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI). On Saturday, the Vice President stated her strong belief that the commission was primarily established to “legitimize” the government’s official narrative surrounding the systemic corruption plaguing public works.
When asked to assess the investigations undertaken by the ICI thus far, Duterte’s response was not an evaluation of competence, but a questioning of motive. She suggested that the commission, created by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. through Executive Order No. 94 to look into graft across all government infrastructure projects, including controversial flood control works, may serve more as a political mechanism than a genuine investigative body.
Questioning the Necessity and Cost of the ICI
Vice President Duterte openly questioned the fundamental necessity of forming a new investigative body when existing governmental resources could easily handle the task. Speaking in Filipino during an interview in Manaoag, Pangasinan, she pointed directly to the considerable resources available to the executive branch.
“I don’t know why the ICI conducts investigations because it’s easy,” she argued. “The Office of the President has billions of confidential funds. The office can do case buildup using the resources of the Office of the President.”
Her statement implies that the creation of the three-member commission, composed of a chairperson and two members who have already begun inviting implicated personalities and politicians, represents an unnecessary administrative layer and potential waste of resources. By leveraging the vast, dedicated resources and intelligence gathering capabilities of the Office of the President, Duterte suggests, a more direct and cost-effective “case buildup” could have been achieved.
The ICI’s work has involved meeting with various government agencies and individuals implicated in infrastructure anomalies, including high-profile figures and politicians.1 The commission has even signaled its intention to pursue forfeiture of assets tied to the corruption, with a reported target of 2$\text{P}5\text{ billion}$ in assets connected to the flood control mess.3
The Goal: Creating the ‘Official Narrative’
Duterte elaborated on her skepticism, asserting that the ICI’s true function is not independent investigation but the careful cultivation of an undisputed public record.
“I believe, and based on what I read, on what he does, he wanted to form ICI and of course, we won’t know what the commission will talk about inside,” she remarked, referencing the closed-door nature of the current hearings.
She stressed that the outcome of the probe will be immediately framed as the authoritative account of the situation: “They opened ICI so whatever its investigation report is, that will be the official narrative on the corruption that happened.” The final reports, she noted, will be deliberately fed to the public to inform them of the actions taken.
The political utility of this approach, according to the Vice President, lies in its ability to preempt and neutralize any public opposition or debate. “That way, you as a citizen will not be able to dispute and oppose the results because he will say, ‘No, that’s legitimate. I formed the commission, the commission is investigating, there’s a commission report.’”
This cynical assessment suggests that the ICI’s findings will be utilized to shield the government’s actions from legitimate criticism by certifying them with the stamp of a dedicated commission’s report.
Loss of Key Witnesses Amidst Publicity Concerns
The controversy surrounding the ICI’s operation was heightened by the news that the commission has already lost the cooperation of key potential witnesses.4 ICI Executive Director Brian Hosaka confirmed that contractor couple Pacifico “Curlee” and Cezarah “Sarah” Discaya have withdrawn from the investigation into the flood control anomalies.5
Hosaka explained that the Discayas had initially expected a “favorable recommendation from the commission as state witnesses” in exchange for their cooperation.6 However, their decision to withdraw was reportedly influenced by a recent media interview given by ICI member and former Department of Public Works and Highways Secretary Rogelio “Babes” Singson. Singson’s personal opinion, which reportedly suggested he currently saw no witness who warranted a recommendation for state witness status, prompted the couple to back out.
This development highlights the delicate balance the ICI is trying to maintain. Hosaka previously defended the commission’s decision to avoid livestreaming its hearings, stressing that the ICI is “avoiding trial by publicity, and will not allow it to be used for any political leverage or agenda by any individual or group.” However, the loss of the Discayas suggests that even carefully managed public comments from commission members can have significant, detrimental effects on the integrity and effectiveness of the investigation.7
Meanwhile, other high-profile figures have engaged with the commission. Leyte 1st District Rep. Martin Romualdez, for instance, appeared before the body on October 14, where he publicly denied all allegations that he had received kickbacks from government infrastructure projects.8 The investigation continues, but Vice President Duterte’s stinging critique ensures that the process, and its eventual findings, will be viewed through a political lens, questioning whether the goal is genuine anti-corruption or the strategic control of the public narrative.
