Make ICI report public now

Make ICI report public now | Daily Tribune

It has sat in Malacañang and in the Ombudsman’s office, shuttled between the two for longer than the investigation itself took. Enough.

In March, the Palace said the findings were already with the Ombudsman. Press Officer Claire Castro said releasing them was his call.

In April, the Palace repeated the buck-passing, saying the release rested with the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice, not the Palace. Every hand pointed to the hand beside it.

This was disgusting and impossible to accept at face value.

The Sandiganbayan recently dropped former Public Works Secretary Manuel Bonoan from the plunder and graft charges tied to Jinggoy Estrada, clearing the way for him to testify as a state witness against Martin Romualdez, the former Speaker.

Romualdez’s camp is already working the seams: his spokesman says Bonoan never named the former Speaker in his original submission to the ICI, and the accusation only surfaced when Bonoan needed a deal.

Bonoan being cleared of plunder charges, an offense for which bail is generally not available, raises questions, particularly because he has been identified, along with the late Public Works and Highways Undersecretary Cathy Cabral, as a key figure in the alleged flood control racket.

Cabral later died in circumstances that investigators ruled a suicide, a conclusion that has continued to draw public skepticism.

President Marcos formed the ICI as an immediate response to the trillion-peso scandal under his watch. Yet the only document it produced that could establish a clear trail to the perpetrators has not been made public.

The ICI’s work was billed as independent, and it was said it would not include politicians because the investigation was technical, not partisan. A technical, non-partisan report does not become classified the moment it names names.

The ICI, however, was still far from the independent body that it was hyped to be. For instance, it refused to release Sandro Marcos’s testimony video without his written authorization, even after he told reporters, on the record, that he had given “full authority” for its release. This was one example of a much larger pattern in which cooperation was announced loudly, but disclosure was withheld quietly.

The nation was told in the last State of the Nation Address that charges against Romualdez were coming.

The report is not covered by executive privilege in any meaningful sense. An independent commission produced it, not a Cabinet deliberation, and its subject was a criminal conspiracy involving public funds, not matters of state security.

If the DoJ or the Ombudsman has concerns about prejudicing the trial, redact what must be redacted and say so, specifically, in public.

Silence dressed up as procedure cannot continue. What the public gets is endless dodging: a full report everyone agrees exists but which no office will admit is theirs to release.

The floodwaters that the scandal is named for did their damage because money meant for drainage went to line pockets.

The report that would help clear up the mess sits where it cannot do the job it was meant to do.