ICI: Neither independent nor a commission – Marcos’ propaganda tool

PRESIDENT Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s “Independent Commission on Infrastructure (ICI),” supposedly tasked with investigating ghost or substandard flood-control systems and recommending criminal charges, is essentially a public relations maneuver designed to deflect attention from allegations of this administration’s criminal negligence or even complicity that enabled such widespread corruption during his watch.

This so-called commission is crafted to keep the blame narrowly focused on “greedy contractors,” including their collaborators in government, while insulating both Marcos and his cousin, House Speaker Martin Romualdez — under whose leadership massive corruption occurred during their first three years in office — from any accountability.

The executive order establishing the commission also instructs it to investigate infrastructure projects from the Duterte administration onwards. This is a clear indication that the commission will be used to fabricate charges of flood-control anomalies linked to Duterte-era officials, potentially tarnishing Vice President Sara Duterte, a leading contender for the 2028 presidential race.

This tactic echoes the familiar Marcosian playbook. In 1983, his father, Ferdinand Marcos Sr., created the Agrava Commission via Presidential Decree 1886 to investigate the assassination of opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr. After more than a year of hearings, the public’s initial belief in Marcos’ involvement waned. The commission ultimately pointed to two dozen military men and a notorious colonel as responsible, sidestepping any suggestion of Marcos’ involvement. The commission functioned less as a mechanism for uncovering the truth and more as a pressure valve for public anger, diverting it into institutional channels instead of toward those at the top.

PR

Already, Marcos Jr.’s PR-crisis strategy has had some success, demonstrated by the recent imbecilic cartoon in this paper showing the President cleaning out a rats’ nest. In reality, it is Marcos who allowed rats to build a nest in his nation. With the country shocked by such horrendous crimes and the floods they created, Marcos is pretending to be cleaning out the rats’ nest.

The ICI, especially with the specialized backgrounds of two members — former Aquino III public works secretary Rogelio Singson and SGV & Co. managing partner Rossana Fajardo — will focus on the mechanics of how ghost or substandard projects were executed and the involvement of officials from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). With at least 60 projects to review, public attention will likely fade, allowing the ICI to declare from the outset that probing the complicity of the President, its creator, is beyond its mandate.

Despite its name, the ICI is neither independent nor a true commission. The terms “independent” and “commission” are deliberately misleading, intended to evoke associations with the highly successful Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which was created through the ICAC Ordinance of 1974 — a law under the then British colonial legal system.

Marcos’ ICI is not independent; its members are appointed by Marcos, and have unspecified civil service ranks. Its executive director holds only undersecretary status. All personnel, resources and funding are subject to Marcos’ wish. Members can be dismissed at any time, and salaries and operations depend entirely on presidential favor.

Additionally, referring to this body as a “commission” rather than a “research body” misleads the public and violates legal standards and the Constitution. Philippine law and jurisprudence specify that only commissions created by statute — those with quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial authority — can wield coercive powers, such as issuing subpoenas. Constitutional commissions (e.g., Comelec, COA) or statutory bodies like the Philippine Competition Commission (RA 10667) and National Privacy Commission (RA 10173) can issue subpoenas only because their enabling laws specifically grant this power.

Congress

The ICI was created solely by Executive Order 94, not by an act of Congress. Therefore, it lacks inherent subpoena power and cannot legally compel testimony or documents from contractors, DPWH officials, or local executives — it can only request cooperation. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that subpoena powers must be granted by law, not by executive fiat. By circumventing legislative authorization, the Marcos administration has ensured that the ICI remains structurally toothless.

A further constitutional hurdle is funding. The 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 29 (1), mandates: “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” Since the ICI was not created by law, it cannot be funded by taxpayers’ money.

It is therefore unsurprising that two former Supreme Court justices — allegedly considered for appointment — declined to participate. Marcos has appointed two non-lawyers: Singson and Fajardo to the ICI. Benjamin Magalong, Baguio City’s mayor and a former police general, agreed to participate strictly as a “special adviser,” whatever that is.

The propaganda intent of the ICI is apparent when compared to successful anti-corruption commissions abroad. Hong Kong’s ICAC and Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) were both established through enabling statutes — the ICAC Ordinance in 1974, and the Prevention of Corruption Act (1937), strengthened in 1960, respectively. These legal foundations grant the search, seizure and referral powers necessary for genuine anti-corruption work, including investigation of high officials. Such statutory backing allowed Singapore’s CPIB to become a respected and fearsome institution.

Cosmetic

In stark contrast, the ICI in the Philippines is not grounded in law, and its independence is purely optics. Without congressional approval, it remains a “research body” masquerading as a commission.

The Marcos administration faces mounting exposés over phantom flood-control projects, especially in Leyte and Bulacan, and other strongholds of presidential allies. Billions have disappeared into projects awarded to companies with links to lawmakers from the ruling coalition. Instead of risking a genuine investigation that might implicate DPWH or bring scrutiny upon the Palace, the ICI narrative is designed to cast contractors as the sole villains.

This arrangement is quintessential propaganda. By pledging an “independent” inquiry, Marcos is seeking to defuse public anger. By restricting blame to contractors, the commission shields the political apparatus — the DPWH and Congress, where allocations are maneuvered through pork-barrel tactics — from scrutiny. The President, who controls ICI’s budget and its personnel, is kept above suspicion.

ICI is thus prevented from investigating whether the President and his closest allies benefited from ghost allocations or whether political allies pressured DPWH for favorable contracts. It is restricted to chasing small fish while the big sharks swim free.

---

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao

X: @bobitiglao

Archives: www.rigobertotiglao.com

Book orders: https://ift.tt/ABw3Fa4

The post ICI: Neither independent nor a commission – Marcos’ propaganda tool first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.

ICI: Neither independent nor a commission – Marcos’ propaganda tool
Source: Breaking News PH