The role of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) is a puzzle to those following the “Floodgate” scandal since it duplicates the functions of both the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman.

It has become an appendix of the DoJ causing a clash in the interaction and roles of the two bodies.

Then there’s the Ombudsman, whose primary responsibility is to go after corrupt public officials who fail to perform their duties under the law.

What takes the cake is a 2012 memorandum of agreement (MOA)between the DoJ and the Ombudsman to collaborate on prosecuting and holding accountable erring public officials, thereby covering all the functions of the ICI.

Under the MoA, the delineation is clear. The DoJ handles the case buildup and prosecution of officials with salary grades 26 and below, while those with salary grades 27 and above fall under the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Under an Executive Order, the ICI’s mandate is to gather information through crowdsourcing and to accept and process relevant information from the public.

Since the new Ombudsman has been appointed and assumed office, all the findings of the DoJ, including those of the task force on flood control, are referred to the Ombudsman. Under the Ombudsman’s mandate, it is that office that has the overall authority to prosecute those who must be held accountable. The Ombudsman will continue with the investigations.

The DoJ gathers information as evidence, builds up cases, and then refers these to the Ombudsman.

The DoJ, through a task force, referred five cases involving “ghost projects” to the Office of the Ombudsman last Tuesday.

The confusion in the roles they play has resulted in hurdles to the probe of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) flood control projects.

We are now awaiting word from the Ombudsman whether it will initiate the prosecution themselves or if the DoJ will handle it.

Since the DoJ and the ICI both look for evidence and build up cases, their functions also intertwine. But the DoJ claims no conflict since the ICI “coordinates with us.”

“They have access to specific sources that we don’t,” such as their authority to request information from various agencies, according to a DoJ official.

The reality, however, is that the ICI is borrowing DoJ prosecutors who have the expertise to organize evidence and information, allowing the DoJ to undertake the investigative role.

The ICI, however, is mandated to be an independent body; thus, DoJ prosecutors performing functions for the commission compromise its claim of independence.

The ICI should live up to its name, but its power to request information from the House of Representatives, the Senate, the courts, the Ombudsman, and other authorities indicates it is largely powerless on its own.

“So how is that independent, when it relies on so many others for information?” asked a senator during a public hearing on the DoJ budget.

The ICI’s lack of authority to obtain information on its own also raises questions about its independence.

Questions on its independence only strengthen arguments that the ICI’s functions overlap with the investigative agencies.

In short, the ICI plays a role beyond gathering evidence on the corruption involving the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

It is an effective smokescreen, which is all there is to its reason for being.