Author: user user

A 29-year-old senior high school teacher on Thursday questioned before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of Executive Order (EO) No. 94 that created the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI).

In a 22-page petition, John Barry Tayam, asked the high tribunal to determine the validity of the order and define the commission’s scope of authority.

Tayam, a private citizen who once vied for the lone congressional seat in Las Piñas, has previously filed at least two petitions before the high court on different issues.

The ICI and the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, were named as respondents in his latest petition.

Tayam argued that the establishment of the ICI created redundancy with existing government bodies like the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice, both of which are also investigating anomalous flood control and infrastructure projects.

‘This excessive bureaucracy effectively deprives the public of its right to a speedy trial, a right crucial for a frustrated populace demanding quick resolution regarding the individuals involved in the flood control issues,’ he said.

More appropriate

The ICI, he said, also faces similar issues with the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) created during the term of the late former President Benigno Aquino III.

Formed in 2010, the PTC was tasked to investigate corruption allegedly committed under then President Gloria Macapal-Arroyo’s administration. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year for violating the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution.

‘While the current structure may offer some difference from the PTC, defining the scope as the last 10 years from 2025 creates a potentially biased outcome,’ Tayam said.

The limited timeframe, he argued, only allows for a partial investigation of Aquino’s term but covers the entirety of the Duterte administration.

He said a ‘more appropriate approach’ would have been the creation of a Board of Inquiry within the Department of Public Works and Highways, similar to the process used for the Mamasapano incident probe.

‘Should the ICI fail, be declared unconstitutional, or be abolished by the executive branch, a more powerful successor commission could emerge,’ Tayam said. He cited House Bill No. 445337 and Senate Bill No. 121538, which both call for the creation of an Independent People’s Commission (IPC).

‘The IPC would have a function similar to the ICI, but it is designed to be more reliable and powerful due to its legislative foundation. Crucially, the IPC could be empowered with contempt authority, which would allow it to enforce cooperation from summoned individuals during investigations,’ he added.

Previous petitions

Under EO 94, the ICI is defined as an ad hoc fact-finding commission mandated to hear, investigate, gather and evaluate evidence whether through complaint or motu proprio against all government officials and employees, and any other individuals allegedly involved in flood control anomalies.

It can recommend the filing of criminal, civil or administrative cases against erring officials to the Office of the President, Ombudsman and the Civil Service Commission. It is also empowered to issue subpoenas for attendance of witnesses and production of documents needed in its investigation.

Tayam ran for the congressional seat in Las Piñas, a stronghold of the Villar and Aguilar political clans, in this year’s mid-term elections but lost to independent candidate Mark Anthony Santos.

In March 2025, he filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Supreme Court to resolve key constitutional questions surrounding the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, including the provision stating that the trial must proceed ‘forthwith.’

In August also this year, he again filed a petition before the high court, this time challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 12232 that extended the term of office of the incumbent barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan officials from three to four years.

Following the Department of Public Works and Highways’ (DPWH) move to reduce the costs of its materials by as much as 50 percent to align these with real market prices, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on Thursday ordered more agencies to cut their expenses for construction projects.

The directive covers the Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, National Irrigation Administration, Department of the Interior and Local Government, Department of Health, and Department of Transportation, among other agencies with infrastructure items in their budgets.

The move is expected to substantially reduce the costs of farm-to-market roads, classrooms, hospitals, ports, bridges, and irrigation systems in 2026, according to the President.

‘So let me be clear. The quality of what we build will not be compromised. The only thing weakened will be corruption,’ Marcos said in his departure speech before leaving for Gyeongju, South Korea, to attend the 32nd Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Economic Leaders’ Meeting from Oct. 30 to Nov. 2.

‘This is the accountability that our citizens deserve. It will not be limited to the public works, but it shall be the norm across all of the government,’ he added.

Big savings

According to the President, the savings from the lower costs of the projects will be used to support the government’s other social programs.

‘The savings we secure will go where they matter most: to programs that uplift families, support livelihoods, and strengthen communities. Because when our people grow in capability and confidence, the nation grows with them,’ Marcos noted.

Article continues after this advertisement

‘[From] a government that honors public trust, a nation that stands firm on integrity, this is our promise: a real change for every Filipino today and for generations to come,’ he added.

President Marcos projected that the significant reduction in the prices of construction materials would result in savings of at least P35 billion to P45 billion in the government’s capital outlays, which refer to the expenditures to build roads, bridges, dams, irrigation work, schools, and hospitals.

These expenses make up almost a quarter, or P1.461 trillion, of the P6.352-trillion budget for the current year.

Under the proposed P6.793-trillion budget for 2026, capital outlays are already down by 9.4 percent to P1.324 trillion.

While the 2026 budget is still being deliberated in the Senate, the capital outlays under the House of Representatives-approved General Appropriations Bill were slashed after the lower chamber completely eliminated the allocation for locally funded flood control projects under the DPWH’s budget and realigned these to other agencies.

Pricing benchmark

This resulted in some P255.5 billion being slashed from the proposed 2026 outlay of the DPWH following President Marcos’ order to conduct a sweeping review of its original P881.3-billion budget.

With the President’s latest order, the final capital outlays in the proposed 2026 General Appropriations Act can even go down further.

On Oct. 25, before he attended the 47th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) Summit in Malaysia, President Marcos ordered Public Works Secretary Vince Dizon to cut the agency’s standard costs for construction materials by half after learning that these were overpriced.

The directive comes in the wake of the corruption scandal that cost the government multibillion-peso losses from irregular, incomplete, substandard, and ‘ghost’ flood control projects that the President himself exposed in August.

Dizon called the President’s directive the ‘single biggest reform ever in the DPWH.’

‘The lowering of material costs is just one of the many reforms and changes we need to implement in the DPWH,’ Dizon said. ‘In my view, that is the most important one because if we can bring those costs down, we automatically bring down corruption as well.’

The DPWH sets the baseline cost of materials used for government infrastructure projects through its construction materials price data (CMPD).

Along with labor and equipment rental rates, the CMPD serves as the basis for the detailed unit price analysis, the program of works, and the approved budget for the contract.

Cheaper prices of construction materials, as outlined under CMPD, will result in lower costs for projects funded by taxpayers’ money.

The Office of the Ombudsman on Thursday released a copy of the controversial ‘secret decision’ to reverse an order to dismiss Sen. Joel Villanueva from public office over the alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in 2008 when he was still a member of the House of Representatives.

The reversal of the dismissal was contained in a 10-page order signed in 2019 by then-Ombudsman Samuel Martires, who critics had called out for not making it available to the public at the time.

His successor, Jesus Crispin Remulla, who was unaware of the six-year-old ‘surprise secret decision,’ vowed to release it in public, fulfilling his promise on Thursday.

He had earlier said that he would ask the Senate to implement the November 2016 dismissal order by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.

‘No adequate evidence’

In his order, Martires said there was ‘no adequate evidence on record’ showing that Villanueva was actually involved in the alleged embezzlement of the P9.7 million of his PDAF, which was popularly known as the congressional pork barrel fund.

Villanueva, then a representative of the Citizens’ Battle Against Crime party list, or Cibac, was slapped with administrative and criminal charges over the alleged misuse of his PDAF funds for a nonexistent project in Compostela Valley province.

At that time, the government was investigating those involved in the P10-billion pork barrel scam allegedly masterminded by businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, who created bogus nongovernmental organizations to which lawmakers’ PDAF was transferred in exchange for kickbacks.

Article continues after this advertisement

The administrative charges against Villanueva included grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. These charges would have led to his dismissal from public service, as well as his perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Villanueva was charged with criminal malversation of public funds, malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, and graft.

Martires said in his 2019 order that there was a ‘cogent basis’ to grant the motion for reconsideration filed by Villanueva contesting the earlier findings by Morales.

Martires said the signature of Villanueva that appeared on top of his name in the acceptance reports for the projects using his PDAF was ‘forged.’

No proof of conspiracy

‘In fact, there is no adequate evidence on record showing that Villanueva was actually involved in the embezzlement of the P9,700,000.00 in public funds,’ Martires said in his order he signed on Sept. 13, 2019.

In a separate order he signed on Oct. 18, 2019, clearing the criminal charges against Villanueva, he said that the investigators failed to prove the alleged conspiracy to embezzle the public funds between the public officials charged, including Villanueva, and the private respondents.

He then granted Villanueva’s supplemental motion for reconsideration to contest the criminal charges.

His decisions junked both the administrative and criminal charges against Villanueva. Martires also dismissed the charges against the senator’s coaccused.

The resolutions on the administrative and criminal cases against Villanueva, prepared by graft investigator and prosecutor Francisco Alan Molina, were both dated July 31, 2019, but were only signed later by Martires.

The dismissal sought by Morales was referred to the Senate committee on rules, which was then chaired by now Senate President Vicente ‘Tito’ Sotto III, who cited a provision in the Ombudsman Act exempting members of Congress from the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority.

According to the Senate legal counsel, then, there was no basis to implement the Ombudsman’s order because it was not yet final and executory since the office still had to act on the motion for reconsideration that Villanueva filed.

The Senate legal counsel argued that the alleged offense happened in 2008, but the complaint was filed on Aug. 7, 2015, or ‘way beyond the one-year period under the Ombudsman Act.