The Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) has two main functions – jail the corrupt and reform the government budget process to curb if not stop massive corruption.
To jail the corrupt, the government has deployed its awesome legal and retribution machinery – the Department of Justice, the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Ombudsman. Backing them up are the National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Harnessed with singlemindedness, the full panoply of powers of these agencies should strike fear in the heart and soul of the most corrupt species of Filipinos that ever lived. These people include the nation’s most prominent and powerful politicians, the greediest of contractors, the most vicious of the state’s engineers, auditors and other professionals, including the lowliest of cashiers.
This is battle royale of historic proportions, the defining moment of the Bongbong Marcos Jr. (BBM) presidency. It has no precedent.
Chair Justice Andres Reyes Jr. sees ICI’s job as a fight on behalf of the poor. Every peso of taxpayers’ money pocketed by the corrupt is a peso of product or service due the poor – food, jobs, housing, classrooms, medicine, health care, farm-to-market roads.
This is a War Against Corruption (WAC). Wasakin Ang Corrupt (WAC). ‘Wag Abuso ang Corrupt (WAC). It’s WAC – Wherewithal Against Corruption.
WAC is the ultimate fight for inclusion. Bring down the corrupt high and mighty, society’s degenerate and despicable elite. Uplift and empower the people.
‘The Filipino people suffer most when resources that should strengthen public institutions and services are wasted on projects of doubtful necessity and integrity,’ says ICI chief Reyes in his Oct. 6, 2025 letter to House Speaker Faustino ‘Bojie’ Dy III.
‘The Commission underscores that unchecked insertions – particularly in flood control and similar projects – divert precious funds away from vital priorities such as salaries and benefits of government employees, hospitals, health care and other essential programs,’ Reyes writes Dy.
The ICI wants from the Speaker four things: 1) the House copy of the National Expenditure Program (NEP) for 2020 to 2025 submitted by the Department of Budget and Management; 2) the House copy/version of the NEP for 2020 to 2025 transmitted to the bicameral committee; 3) the list of items removed from the NEP and programs added to the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) for those years and 4) the list of proponents for the projects added to the GAA of 2020 to 2025.
ICI wants to know the congressmen who inserted or created funds in the budget, in the guise of projects, only for these funds to be waylaid by corruption.
On Sept. 29, 2025, the ICI wrote Senate President Tito Sotto asking for six reform measures in budgeting:
First, all deliberations of the bicameral conference committee (bicameral committee) must be properly documented. At present, there are no minutes, transcripts of stenographic notes or recordings that explain how agreements are reached. This absence of record-keeping undermines transparency and fosters speculation. We recommend that proceedings be officially transcribed, recorded and archived, with summaries made accessible to the public as part of the legislative record.
Second, all insertions or amendments to the budget should be substantiated by complete documentation. Projects must be supported by technical descriptions, feasibility studies and endorsements from the relevant local government unit and department secretary. Reliance on concept papers or vague project outlines should no longer be permitted, as this practice erodes integrity and allows questionable projects to be funded without proper review.
Third, clear safeguards must be established to prevent conflicts of interest among legislators.
Says ICI: ‘Several members of Congress, or their relatives, are engaged in contracting and construction businesses that actively participate in public biddings. This creates a risk of self-dealing and misuse of budgetary power. Congress should adopt strict rules requiring disclosure of business interests, cross-checking these disclosures against awarded contracts and prohibiting legislators from inserting projects that directly or indirectly benefit their firms or families.’
Fourth, each insertion must carry a transparent audit trail. The legislator or committee who proposed the amendment, the supporting documents submitted and the officials who approved its inclusion should be clearly identified. This ensures responsibility can be assigned in cases of misuse.
Fifth, the rules on approval authority within the bicameral committee must be clarified and codified. It must be made explicit whether amendments require collective approval, the signatures of all bicameral committee members or the concurrence of specific chairs. No insertion should be considered valid unless accompanied by proper documentation and the approval of the committee as a whole.
Sixth, to reinforce accountability, the final General Appropriations Act should be accompanied by an online disclosure of all amendments, their proponents and the justifications submitted. Moreover, an independent audit of bicameral committee insertions should be undertaken by the Commission on Audit or a designated oversight body within six months after enactment, with results made public.
The ICI wrote President Marcos Jr. suggesting that henceforth, ‘all DPWH transactions amounting to more than 30 million, whether made through wire transfers or telegraphic notes, are simultaneously furnished to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).’
All DPWH contracts P30 million and above, including contracts relating to the conception, design and implementation of infrastructure projects, should likewise be furnished to the BIR.
BIR can thus directly monitor significant financial flows in DPWH projects to ensure:
1. Greater transparency and accountability in the disbursement of large public funds;
2. Enhanced discovery and analysis of financial data and financial artifacts relevant to tax administration and
3. Improved efficiency in revenue collection, with more reliable detection of taxable events and alignment of fiscal records.
BIR participation creates a robust system of fiscal oversight, closes existing monitoring gaps and reinforces the administration’s broader campaign against corruption and misuse of public resources.