Senate Deputy Minority Leader Rodante Marcoleta questioned the independence of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) on Tuesday, October 21, after learning that it sought assistance from various government agencies in carrying out its mandate.
Marcoleta raised the issue during the Senate finance subcommittee deliberations on the proposed 2026 budget of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, chairperson of the Senate Committee on Finance, first inquired about the DOJ’s role in ensuring accountability among individuals involved in the creation of the ICI, as well as its coordination with the Office of the Ombudsman.
According to DOJ OIC-Secretary Frederick Vida, the Ombudsman remains the primary agency responsible for pursuing corrupt public officials who fail to perform their duties under the law.
He cited a 2012 memorandum between the DOJ and the Ombudsman that delineates their respective jurisdictions—cases involving public officials with salary grades 26 and below fall under the DOJ, while those with salary grades 27 and above are handled by the Ombudsman.
Vida added that the information the DOJ gathers is eventually referred to the Ombudsman for appropriate action.
He also noted that while the ICI serves as a fact-finding body, it occasionally requests data and assistance from the DOJ, including the temporary assignment of fiscal officers to help process collected evidence and information.
At this point, Marcoleta questioned the supposed independence of the ICI.
“Akala ko ba ang ICI ay independent body?” he asked Vida.
“Ba’t kinakailangan siya humingi ng tulong sa mga fiscal ninyo o prosecutors? That is not being independent,” he said.
The lawmaker further pointed out that the ICI’s authority includes requesting information from the House of Representatives, Senate, the courts, the Ombudsman, and other agencies upon need.
“Papaano kang independent eh andami mong kinakasangkapan, hingi ka nang hingi [ng information]? You should obtain the information by yourself all alone. Yun ang independent,” Marcoleta added.
In response, DOJ Prosecutor General Anthony Richard Fadullon clarified that there is no duplication of functions between the ICI and the DOJ.
“There would be no duplication sir because in the investigation which are conducted by the DOJ with the assistance of the NBI, during the meetings that we have, members of, or representatives from the ICI are also present and we supply them and we furnished them copies of whatever the results are of the investigation just to make sure that ICI is also informed of the actions being taken by the DOJ,” he explained.
Fadullon emphasized that the DOJ and ICI coordinate closely to prevent overlapping investigations.
“Hangga’t maaari, we provide the ICI with updates or case filings submitted to the Ombudsman to ensure that both bodies are not working on the same cases,” he said.
He added that the DOJ, through the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), can proceed independently with investigations based on submitted or gathered evidence and make recommendations for cases that may advance to preliminary investigation.
“As far as the ICI is concerned, my understanding sir is that they are fact-finding, and whatever the results of their fact-finding investigation would be is the one that should be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman or the DOJ as the case may be,” Fadullon added.