Let the ICI do its job

With members of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) finally chosen last week, can we now expect a well-deserved break from the political scuffle and grandstanding that have all but clouded the real issues in the flood control scandal?

The calamitous floods of recent months have exposed billions—even trillions of pesos– lost on substandard and ghost flood control projects, casino playing government officials, and the ostentatious lifestyle of favored contractors. For sure, these are issues that the ongoing House and Senate hearings can thresh out to pinpoint culpability, systemic failures, and possible legislation that can address flaws and weaknesses in government bidding and procurement processes. As lawmakers, nothing less is expected of them.

Just as welcome and enlightening are the sober debates on such legal precepts as the Witness Protection Program and whether the Discaya couple should first surrender their ill-gotten gains before they can even be considered as state witnesses.

Beyond that, both chambers should respect the mandate given the ICI “to check anomalies in government flood control and infrastructure projects in the last decade.” Admittedly, the composition of the ICI is less than perfect, with some lawmakers pointing out the possible political baggage carried by a few of its members that could dilute public trust in this body.

Conflict of interest

The ICI is chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Andres Reyes, with former public works chief Babes Singson and Sycip Gorres & Velayo country managing partner Rossana Fajardo as members, and Baguio Mayor Benjamin Magalong as special adviser. Reyes was appointed to the high court by former president Rodrigo Duterte, while Magalong is seen by some as possibly using the ICI as a podium for higher political office.

But President Marcos’ statement about sparing no one from the ICI’s investigation should help put those fears to rest. In fact, lawmakers should give the ICI a fair chance to demonstrate its independence and impartiality, given their own biases and vested interests that could taint the ongoing probe.

Definitely, conflict of interest abounds in Congress, casting doubt on how lawmakers linked to erring contractors would handle information damaging to their reputation and political career. At the very least, these lawmakers should inhibit from the panel handling the hearings, and give their full support and cooperation to the ICI instead.

Reasonable timeline

For its part, the ICI should leave no stone unturned in ferreting out culpable parties including unscrupulous officials who allowed corruption to breed and fester. At the same time, the commission should consider setting short- and long-term goals based on public expectations and pragmatic considerations.

Covering four administrations in probing government projects means a long, arduous process that could try the patience of a public already restless with the slow process of prosecuting the guilty. Shouldn’t the ICI start with the most recent cases, identify and prosecute the most visible contractors behind subpar projects, and work its way back to earlier years? Unearthing more recent documents would be easier as the involved parties are still very much around and currently under intense pressure to reveal all they know, if only to save their skin. The ICI should also set a reasonable timeline with which to produce credible, actionable results. As a former government official observed, the ICI must finish its task and succeed before the Marcos term ends, lest it risks dissolution from a succeeding administration that could have different priorities.

Outraged public

Indeed, the ICI must act quickly and thoroughly: expand its lookout bulletin through the Bureau of Immigration; file charges posthaste to be able to foist a hold departure order on complicit contractors and public works officials before they disappear to foreign shores; work with the Anti-Money Laundering Council to uncover and freeze more hidden accounts, and with the tax and Customs authorities to garnish properties found to have insufficient papers and tax receipts.

Prioritizing cases from the last two administrations should fast track the ICI’s investigation, and produce results that could appease an outraged public already taking to the streets to vent their fury. As for perceptions of lingering loyalties to their past political patrons, it is up to ICI members to prove naysayers wrong by carrying out their mandate with integrity, probity, and independence.

Along with expressing support for protest rallies on Sunday as part of the democratic process, the President must meanwhile finish what he started – by leaving the ICI to its task without any meddling or interference. Indeed, not allowing friends, family, political allies, or powerful personalities to escape ICI scrutiny may yet redeem this administration from the cruel flood control scandal that could sink its best intentions.