EO 94 and the Fight Against Corruption in Flood Control and Infrastructure: A Critical Legal Analysis
Introduction
The Filipino people have long been weary of stories of corruption in flood control and infrastructure projects. Despite billions in public spending, floods continue to devastate communities, leaving citizens to wonder: where does the money go?
In response, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. signed Executive Order No. 94 (s. 2025) on September 11, 2025, creating the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI). The Commission is tasked to investigate, uncover, and recommend accountability for irregularities in flood control and infrastructure projects over the past ten years.
But the key question remains: will this body deliver genuine justice, or will it be another commission destined for irrelevance?
---
Key Features of EO 94
Composition
The ICI is composed of one Chairperson and two Members, all of whom must possess proven competence, integrity, and independence.
It is supported by a Secretariat and an Executive Director, the latter with the rank and privileges of an Undersecretary.
Powers
Investigations: It may conduct motu proprio fact-finding or act upon complaints.
Subpoena powers: It can summon witnesses and documents (subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum).
Recommendations for prosecution: It can refer findings to the DOJ, Office of the Ombudsman, Civil Service Commission, and other bodies for appropriate criminal, civil, or administrative action.
Witness protection: It may recommend individuals for inclusion in the Witness Protection Program (RA 6981) or for admission as state witnesses.
Reporting: It must submit monthly reports to the Office of the President and publish accomplishments and updates for the public.
Scope
Its investigations cover flood control and infrastructure projects undertaken in the last ten years.
Support
All Executive branch agencies are mandated to provide full cooperation.
It may also access records from Congress and the courts, including the Sandiganbayan.
Funding
Initial funding comes from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), with subsequent allocations included in the General Appropriations Act.
---
Legal Implications
Executive Order Limitations
The ICI was created through an Executive Order, not an act of Congress. As such, its authority is limited primarily to the Executive branch. It has no direct power over Congress, the Judiciary, or constitutional commissions such as the COA and the Ombudsman.
This raises questions of enforceability. Unlike congressional investigations in aid of legislation, the ICI’s findings are non-binding unless acted upon by constitutionally mandated bodies.
Relationship with the Ombudsman and DOJ
Under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman is the principal authority to investigate and prosecute cases of corruption involving public officials. The DOJ prosecutes criminal cases before the courts.
Thus, the ICI functions only as a fact-finding body whose recommendations still rely on the discretion and action of these prosecutorial and constitutional offices.
Witness Protection and State Witnesses
EO 94’s provision empowering the ICI to recommend witnesses for protection under RA 6981 is significant. Large-scale corruption cases often hinge on insider testimony. Ensuring protection for whistleblowers may strengthen the prospects of successful prosecutions.
---
Political Context
The timing of EO 94 is crucial. It comes amid public outrage following reports of massive fraud in flood control projects, compounded by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ Pastoral Letter of September 8, 2025, which strongly condemned corruption and demanded accountability.
Critics, however, remain skeptical:
Will the Commission dare to touch high-ranking officials and political allies?
Or will it merely serve as a public-relations gesture to pacify public anger?
---
Critical Observations
1. Lack of teeth. Unlike Congress, the ICI has no contempt power. It cannot jail uncooperative witnesses.
2. Reliance on other agencies. Its success depends heavily on how the Ombudsman and DOJ act on its findings.
3. Breadth vs. capacity. Investigating ten years’ worth of projects is an enormous task for a small commission.
4. Risk of political capture. The independence of its members is crucial. If they are beholden to political interests, the Commission may lose credibility.
---
Conclusion
Executive Order No. 94 is a recognition of the gravity of corruption in Philippine infrastructure spending. The Independent Commission for Infrastructure could, in theory, shine a light on hidden networks of fraud and misuse of public funds.
But history tells us that commissions in the Philippines often falter unless they enjoy:
Unquestionable independence of members;
Genuine support from civil society and media;
Active cooperation of constitutional bodies; and
Real political will from Malacañang.
Ultimately, EO 94 will test whether the Marcos Jr. administration is truly committed to dismantling entrenched corruption—or whether this Commission will drown in the very flood of scandals it was created to confront.
---
References
Philippine Information Agency
Presidential Communications Office
Philippine News Agency
GMA News
---
Assisted by ChatGPT AI app, September 12, 2025.
