OPINION
Ed Javier
Why Another Commission Won't Clean Up Corruption But A Stronger Ombudsman Just Might
AI Generate Image
Every time corruption scandals flood the news, Malacañang’s answer is the same: create another commission.
President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. recently created the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), supposedly a “super agency” to investigate irregularities, including the flood-control anomalies now under Senate scrutiny.
At first glance, it sounds like a bold reform. But for those of us who have followed the long history of Philippine anti-corruption drives, it feels like déjà vu.
When we were teenagers, we vividly recall watching the televised hearings of the Agrava Commission in 1983.
The entire nation was glued to the screen, hoping the truth behind Ninoy Aquino’s assassination would finally be revealed.
Three years later, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was formed to recover the alleged Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. family’s ill-gotten wealth.
Now, we are old and full of gray hair, yet we still don’t know who really ordered his killing, and much of the Marcos loot remains tied up in litigation or gone forever. A bitter reminder of how long justice can take.
After that came more alphabet agencies: the Presidential Commission on Anti-Corruption (PCAC), the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), and yet corruption and poverty persist. The poor remain poor, and the corrupt remain powerful.
The problem has never been the lack of agencies. It’s the lack of power, speed, and accountability.
The Long and Winding Road to Justice
Ask anyone who has tried to file a graft complaint. From the PNP, NBI, COA or DOJ, it takes at least a year before a case even reaches the Ombudsman.
Once there, the Ombudsman’s fact-finding and preliminary investigation can drag on for two to five years, sometimes longer.
If it finally gets filed in the Sandiganbayan, expect another three to five years before a decision. When convicted officials appeal to the Supreme Court, the case can take another three to five years.
By then, witnesses have died, evidence disappeared, and justice, for both the public and the honest, has long evaporated.
Worse, hundreds of cases have been dismissed not for lack of evidence, but for “inordinate delay.”
Between 2013 and 2017 alone, at least 565 graft cases were junked by the Sandiganbayan, wasting years of work and billions in public funds.
That’s not justice. That’s paralysis.
What Singapore and Hong Kong Got Right
Now look at Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), the world’s gold standards in fighting graft.
These bodies don’t just investigate; they act fast, hit hard, and follow the money.
They have direct law enforcement powers to investigate, search, seize, arrest, and prosecute without waiting for other agencies.
They have forensic and financial experts who track hidden assets in banks, shell companies, and offshore accounts. They can freeze and forfeit assets so stolen money is recovered quickly and returned to the public.
Most importantly, they operate under strict timelines. There’s no such thing as “inordinate delay.”
In short, they have teeth, something every anti-corruption effort in the Philippines sorely lacks, including the ICI.
Strengthen ICI or Ombudsman?
If the goal is to fight corruption effectively, we need an Office of the Ombudsman that works, not another commission that talks.
While current proposals to strengthen the ICI are laudable, if we may suggest to Congress, the more practical and legally sound solution is to fortify the Office of the Ombudsman instead, leveraging its existing structure, experience, and constitutional independence to deliver results without starting from scratch.
Give it full law enforcement capability, authority to freeze and forfeit assets, restitution mechanisms, and its own financial investigation units.
Allow it to move swiftly, from probe to arrest to asset recovery, without begging for help from the PNP, NBI, DOJ, AMLC, or anyone else.
With the newly appointed Ombudsman, Boying Remulla, promising reforms and faster, trial-ready filing of cases, there is a real opportunity to make justice swift and effective.
That’s how corruption should be fought. Corruption isn’t killed by commissions. It’s killed by conviction.
Starting from zero with the ICI means new bosses, offices, staff, rules, overlaps, and years before it even becomes functional, if ever.
Strengthening the Ombudsman means cutting years of red tape and building on what already works.
We don’t need another glossy commission that ends up as a retirement post or a ribbon-cutting photo-op.
Bottom line: strengthening the Ombudsman is faster, more cost-effective, and leverages existing structure, experience, and constitutional independence to deliver real results.
Bagong Komisyon, Lumang Problema
Hanggang hindi natin binibigyan ng tunay na kapangyarihan at ngipin ang mga ahensiyang laban sa korapsyon, paulit-ulit lang tayo sa parehong eksena:
Bagong opisina, bagong logo, bagong pangako, pero pareho pa rin ang resulta.
Hindi kulang sa batas o ahensya ang Pilipinas. Kulang tayo sa tapang at determinasyong pairalin ang mga ito.
Ang masakit ay ang patuloy na panloloko sa taumbayan na bawat bagong komisyon ay solusyon kuno, gayong alam nating dagdag gastos lang ito sa gobyerno.
Panahon na para tigilan ang porma at simulan ang tunay na reporma.
President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. recently created the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), supposedly a “super agency” to investigate irregularities, including the flood-control anomalies now under Senate scrutiny.
At first glance, it sounds like a bold reform. But for those of us who have followed the long history of Philippine anti-corruption drives, it feels like déjà vu.
When we were teenagers, we vividly recall watching the televised hearings of the Agrava Commission in 1983.
The entire nation was glued to the screen, hoping the truth behind Ninoy Aquino’s assassination would finally be revealed.
Three years later, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was formed to recover the alleged Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. family’s ill-gotten wealth.
Now, we are old and full of gray hair, yet we still don’t know who really ordered his killing, and much of the Marcos loot remains tied up in litigation or gone forever. A bitter reminder of how long justice can take.
After that came more alphabet agencies: the Presidential Commission on Anti-Corruption (PCAC), the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), and yet corruption and poverty persist. The poor remain poor, and the corrupt remain powerful.
The problem has never been the lack of agencies. It’s the lack of power, speed, and accountability.
The Long and Winding Road to Justice
Ask anyone who has tried to file a graft complaint. From the PNP, NBI, COA or DOJ, it takes at least a year before a case even reaches the Ombudsman.
Once there, the Ombudsman’s fact-finding and preliminary investigation can drag on for two to five years, sometimes longer.
If it finally gets filed in the Sandiganbayan, expect another three to five years before a decision. When convicted officials appeal to the Supreme Court, the case can take another three to five years.
By then, witnesses have died, evidence disappeared, and justice, for both the public and the honest, has long evaporated.
Worse, hundreds of cases have been dismissed not for lack of evidence, but for “inordinate delay.”
Between 2013 and 2017 alone, at least 565 graft cases were junked by the Sandiganbayan, wasting years of work and billions in public funds.
That’s not justice. That’s paralysis.
What Singapore and Hong Kong Got Right
Now look at Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), the world’s gold standards in fighting graft.
These bodies don’t just investigate; they act fast, hit hard, and follow the money.
They have direct law enforcement powers to investigate, search, seize, arrest, and prosecute without waiting for other agencies.
They have forensic and financial experts who track hidden assets in banks, shell companies, and offshore accounts. They can freeze and forfeit assets so stolen money is recovered quickly and returned to the public.
Most importantly, they operate under strict timelines. There’s no such thing as “inordinate delay.”
In short, they have teeth, something every anti-corruption effort in the Philippines sorely lacks, including the ICI.
Strengthen ICI or Ombudsman?
If the goal is to fight corruption effectively, we need an Office of the Ombudsman that works, not another commission that talks.
While current proposals to strengthen the ICI are laudable, if we may suggest to Congress, the more practical and legally sound solution is to fortify the Office of the Ombudsman instead, leveraging its existing structure, experience, and constitutional independence to deliver results without starting from scratch.
Give it full law enforcement capability, authority to freeze and forfeit assets, restitution mechanisms, and its own financial investigation units.
Allow it to move swiftly, from probe to arrest to asset recovery, without begging for help from the PNP, NBI, DOJ, AMLC, or anyone else.
With the newly appointed Ombudsman, Boying Remulla, promising reforms and faster, trial-ready filing of cases, there is a real opportunity to make justice swift and effective.
That’s how corruption should be fought. Corruption isn’t killed by commissions. It’s killed by conviction.
Starting from zero with the ICI means new bosses, offices, staff, rules, overlaps, and years before it even becomes functional, if ever.
Strengthening the Ombudsman means cutting years of red tape and building on what already works.
We don’t need another glossy commission that ends up as a retirement post or a ribbon-cutting photo-op.
Bottom line: strengthening the Ombudsman is faster, more cost-effective, and leverages existing structure, experience, and constitutional independence to deliver real results.
Bagong Komisyon, Lumang Problema
Hanggang hindi natin binibigyan ng tunay na kapangyarihan at ngipin ang mga ahensiyang laban sa korapsyon, paulit-ulit lang tayo sa parehong eksena:
Bagong opisina, bagong logo, bagong pangako, pero pareho pa rin ang resulta.
Hindi kulang sa batas o ahensya ang Pilipinas. Kulang tayo sa tapang at determinasyong pairalin ang mga ito.
Ang masakit ay ang patuloy na panloloko sa taumbayan na bawat bagong komisyon ay solusyon kuno, gayong alam nating dagdag gastos lang ito sa gobyerno.
Panahon na para tigilan ang porma at simulan ang tunay na reporma.
Ed Javier
Ed Javier is a veteran communicator with over 35 years of experience in corporate, government, and advocacy communications, spanning the terms of seven Philippine presidents. He is also a political analyst, entrepreneur, and media professional. Drawing on this experience, he delivers clear, accessible analysis of political, governance, and business issues.
Oct 14, 2025
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
