A taxpayer challenged before the Supreme Court (SC) the legality, constitutionality, and scope of authority of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI).

John Barry T. Tayam, who is also a teacher, told the SC that he filed his petition due to his substantial interest in the manner by which public funds are disbursed and managed.

Executive Order No. 94 that created the ICI was issued by President Marcos last Sept. 11, 2025 to probe the government’s flood control and other infrastructure projects for the past 10 years from the date of effectivity of the EO.

The ICI is headed by retired SC associate Justice Andres B. Reyes Jr. It has started its investigation and has submitted several recommendations to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) for prosecution.

The commission is empowered not only to investigate, receive evidence, and evaluate reports and testimonies but also to recommend the filing of criminal, civil, and administrative cases before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) against persons involved in ghost and substandard flood control and other projects for the past 10 years.

In his prayer for relief, Tayam asked the SC: “Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Honorable Court grant the Petition for Certiorari and subsequently declare the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 94, Series of 2025, and determine the lawful creation and scope of authority of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI).”

Tayam told the SC that the flood control projects have been a highly controversial public issue for the last two months due to allegations of substandard and ghost projects.

“This corruption scandal, which involves numerous public officials, including DPWH District Engineers and some legislators from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, has enraged the public and led to mass rallies over the past few weeks,” he said.

He recalled that during the administration of the late former president Benigno Simeon "PNoy" C. Aquino III in 2010, Executive Order No. 1, Series of 2010, which created the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC), was subsequently declared unconstitutional by the SC.”

He pointed out that while the ICI may not be identified to the PTC, “a conflict of interest is nonetheless a concern, as the investigation centers on the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) specifically, its previous secretaries and district engineers, all of whom fall under the Executive Branch headed by the President.”

Tayam told the SC that “a more appropriate approach would have been the creation of a Board of Inquiry (BOI) within the (DPWH) itself, similar to the process used for the Mamasapano incident investigation….”

At the same time, Tayam said the creation of the ICI has the “risks of prolonging the investigation and creating redundancy with existing government bodies such as the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice (DOJ).”

He said the Senate and the House of Representatives already have committees capable of assisting with the investigation or case build-up.  

“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 alleged.

He also alleged that the limited timeline in the scope of the investigation by the ICC would only allow for a probe on the latter half of the PNoy administration (2015-2016), yet it would cover the entirety of the Duterte administration (2016-202).   

At the same time, he said there is no provision in EO 94 that excludes the remaining years of the Marcos administration from the ICI investigation.  

“This situation also constitutes unfairness and a violation of the equal protection clause,” he stressed.      

Thus, Tayam pleaded the SC to resolve his petition on the powers and limitations of the ICI, “including the legality and validity of the Executive Order that created it, with due consideration to its transcendental importance to public interest and respect to the Constitution.”

He expressed hopes that “any decision rendered by the SC will be carefully tailored so as not to impede ongoing or pending criminal, administrative, or civil cases against those found liable, nor prejudice future cases related to these flood control issues.”