Designing an anti-corruption body that lasts
Another anti-corruption commission has been born. President Marcos has announced the creation of the Independent Commission on Infrastructure (ICI) to probe anomalies in one of the Philippines’ most graft-prone sectors.
The public may well ask: Will this commission be different? Or will it end up like so many others—well-intentioned at the start, but quickly sidelined, politicized, or forgotten?
We have a long track record of failure. Former president Fidel Ramos created the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, headed by Eufemio Domingo, in 1994. Former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo replaced it with the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, headed by Constancia de Guzman, with Teresita Baltazar as its civil society representative. Former president Rodrigo Duterte launched the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission under Greco Belgica. All three commissions eventually disappeared into irrelevance.
Even our constitutionally mandated Ombudsman—theoretically independent and powerful—has suffered the same fate. Simeon Marcelo, who earned respect under the Arroyo administration, resigned early, worn down by political pressure. Merceditas Gutierrez resigned in 2011, just before her Senate impeachment trial, accused of protecting allies of the Arroyo administration. Only Conchita Carpio-Morales, appointed by the late president Benigno Aquino Jr., restored public trust by pursuing high-profile cases with vigor.
The cycle is predictable: each new body rises in response to public clamor, but without institutional design for independence and sustainability, it fades away.
Civil society once offered a spark of hope. The Transparency and Accountability Network, under Vincent Lazatin, pioneered Appointments Watch and partnered with the Department of Public Works and Highways in Bantay Lansangan, monitoring road projects nationwide. But TAN could not sustain its 19-member coalition, over-relying on its secretariat and struggling with resources. Transparency International Philippines, once connected to the global watchdog, collapsed when internal leadership capture undermined its credibility. The lesson is harsh but clear: even moral crusades cannot survive on idealism alone. Without resources, cohesion, and structure, they falter.
This is why the ICI, if it is to matter, cannot operate in isolation. It must formalize “Track Two” partnerships with civil society networks—reviving TAN, reconnecting with Transparency International, and mobilizing volunteer surge forces through the National Service Training Program and the National Service Reserve Corps. Participatory and social audits can give the ICI both grassroots legitimacy and the manpower to monitor thousands of infrastructure projects.
Technology makes this vision more powerful than in past decades. With smartphones, geotagging, and artificial intelligence (AI), citizens can report anomalies, map projects, and flag ghost or defective works in real time. Imagine a public dashboard where every bridge, school, or road funded by taxpayers can be tracked, photographed, and verified by local communities. The ICI can harness digital tools not only for efficiency but also to show that citizen reports matter and lead to action.
But design is everything. To avoid becoming another paper tiger, the ICI must:
1. Carve out a clear niche: focus on systemic corruption in infrastructure, not duplicating the Ombudsman or the Commission on Audit.
2. Build independence through leadership: appoint commissioners with reputations beyond politics, not beholden to presidential favor.
3. Institutionalize civil society participation: through a memorandum of agreement with networks like TAN, ensuring resources for participatory audits.
4. Leverage information and communications technology and AI: for transparent complaint systems, project mapping, and anomaly detection.
5. Connect internationally: by engaging with global watchdogs and donor partners that can sustain transparency beyond political cycles.
The Marcos administration has a fleeting opportunity to break the pattern. The ICI could either be remembered as another ceremonial commission, or it could anchor a new integrity ecosystem that combines state oversight, citizen vigilance, and digital innovation.
Filipinos have grown weary of paper tigers. What we need is a body with real bite—one that can outlast political whims, earn the trust of citizens, and make the cost of corruption higher than its rewards.
