How much power should an anti-graft body have?
MANILA, Philippines — As corruption probes into multibillion-peso infrastructure projects intensify, lawmakers and legal luminaries are debating how much authority the government’s anti-graft commissions should actually wield.
On Wednesday, October 22, the Senate opened deliberations on the proposed Infrastructure Anomalies Investigation Act of 2025, which seeks to establish a new Independent People’s Commission (IPC) to probe major public works scandals.
The hearing gathered some of the country's top legal minds to tackle the formation of the IPC, which differs from the existing Independent Commision for Infrastructure (ICI), which was created in September through an executive order from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
The two commissions share the same challenge: balancing investigative power with constitutional limits.
Drilon: Keep it fact-finding, not prosecutorial
For former Senate president Franklin Drilon, the IPC should remain as a fact-finding body, while the Ombudsman serves as the primary investigator of government anomalies.
Drilon raised the tendency of adding more people into a system, thereby creating a large bureaucracy. But due to extraordinary circumstances, the IPC or ICI is necesary.
“We must strengthen our institutions of democracy that would exact accountability, rather than keep on adding bodies. That is why I am in favor of the proposed commission but it must be an ad hoc, it must have a sunset clause,” Drilon said.
A temporary fact-finding body would expire at the end of the president's term, he proposed. He also argued that the commissions' powers must be adequate, but not excessive. For one, it could issue lookout bulletin orders that seek travel monitoring, but not hold departure orders—impeding individuals' right to travel—that are properly issued by courts.
The bodies would therefore only investigate, not adjudicate, Drilon said.
Puno: Give it independence and teeth
Retired chief justice Reynato Puno, however, took a broader view. He said the proposed IPC should be designed to stand independently of political influence, with means to be unconstrained by other agencies.
This means it would have its own budget, operational autonomy and legal immunity for its members to protect them from retaliatory lawsuits.
"The bill should not only give the commission the power to investigate, but also, the power to file the appropriate charges, and the power to prosecute them,” Puno said. He likened it to anti-corruption bodies of other countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong.
The proposed bill must also bar lower courts to issue a temporary restraining orders that could stall the IPC’s investigations, limiting such interventions only to the Supreme Court, Puno said.
The constitutional question
Drilon disagreed with Puno, saying prosecution powers for the IPC would violate the Consitution, which vests those functions in the Ombudsman.
Drilon noted that no previous fact-finding commission has had such power. The Agrava Commission that looked into the Ninoy Aquino assassination, and the Philpppine Truth Commission tasked to look into large-scale corruption under the Arroyo administration were not granted prosecutorial powers.
Puno, however, insisted that the power to prosecute will not undermine the Ombudsman's work, but merely complement it. He explained this is similar to Office of the Solicitor General's deputizing of prosecutors under the Department of Justice to handle cases in lower courts.
Drilon pointed out that it was because the Solicitor General's office is part of the DOJ's organization structure. The IPC, on the other hand, would be a separate, independent entity.
Why this debate matters
The discussion comes amid questions about the scope and limits of the existing ICI, which has been hampered by its lack of subpoena powers despite having to investigate a potentially massive case of kleptocracy in the public works sector.
The ICI's authority came under scrutiny when the Discayas, the controversial government contractors, decided to withdraw their cooperation from the anti-graft body's probe. Many cited the commission's inability to compel testimony or access certain documents—the teeth to seek out the truth in the corruption scandal.
Senate President Tito Sotto, the author of the new bill, said the input from Drilon and Puno would help refine the IPC's powers.
The challenge is to ensure the body will be effective in rooting out schemes to siphon public funds and abuses of authority without violating constitutional checks and balances.
- Latest
- Trending
