By way of a cursory reading of the newly minted Executive Order (EO) 94, let’s walk through the salient highlights of its preambular “11 whereases” that constitute its foundational principles in terms of context and legal rationale. In essence, it’s akin to an Explanatory Note in a proposed Senate or House bill that later passes into a Republic Act. Thus, on the strength of the EO, the Independent Commission on Infrastructure (ICI) is henceforth in force and in effect.
Its central theme mandates the ICI to “repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.” In iteration, it states, viz: “(it) will take decisive measures to repress and hold accountable government officials and employees, and any other individuals, who engage in graft and corrupt practices, or other acts that undermine the national interest and betray the people’s trust.” Penultimately, it stipulates that “it will investigate and undertake appropriate measures against those involved in irregularities in government infrastructure projects.”
There are crucial principles duly articulated in the order. One, it is well-anchored on pertinent constitutional provisions and relevant laws. Two, it is an ad hoc fact-finding commission. Three, in its fully defined mandate, it shall do so moto propio. Four, ICI shall be rendered functus officio upon accomplishment of the purpose for which it was created or unless sooner dissolved. Lastly, note carefully that the order states, viz: “ICI shall prioritize the investigation of flood control and other infrastructure projects within the last ten years from the order’s effectivity.
The last element may well refer to what in public policy constitutes a “backward mapping” that in this case refers to the 10-year time continuum prior or leading to present-day 2025, if ordinary understanding would be correct. In other words, as much as the fact-finding job would cover 2015 onward to 2025, ICI shall navigate everything it could find that delves on “anomalies, irregularities, and misuse of funds by government officials and employees, and any other individuals.”
Subject to style by those who will operationalize EO 94, let’s adopt the purview of backward mapping from AI’s (artificial intelligence) corpus of knowledge. First, starting with a broad set of policies, backward mapping begins with the desired outcome or societal goal. Second, the process logically reverses to determine the specific decisions, actions, and resources required of various actors at different levels to achieve that outcome. Third, it focuses on elements that are indirectly influenced, such as the knowledge of lower level administrators, incentive structures, bargaining relationships, and the strategic use of funds.
Inasmuch as grueling inquiries by both chambers of Congress have gotten underway, a substantial part of the powers and functions of the fact-finding body would have been carried out consistent with the same array of existing laws, rules and regulations.
With the new appointees to the three-member body, ICI must steer its course with a reliable investigative “roadmap.” There ought to be a seamless transition in all aspects of the ongoing investigations once ICI begins its navigation of the turbulent floodwaters of corruption called the “Philippine floodgate scandal.”
As every student in the PA discipline is taught: “Government is too big to fail.” There’s high hope that this debilitating “bureaucratic Covid” could be repressed and will soon go away. We cannot consider the broken flood mitigating structures as largely one of government failure. In fact, it was more of a market failure that makes this an opportune time for the government to intervene and put things back in order.
If the President must have the firm resolve to pave the way toward “zero corruption in infrastructure,” then no fraudsters, grafters, or rent seekers will even attempt to mess with public funds on pain of adverse government action.