CARTOON BY: AARON PAUL C. CARIL
EDITORIAL
EO 94: Marcos’ Gambit or Genuine Reform?
On September 11, 2025, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed Executive Order No. 94, creating the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI)—a body tasked with investigating corruption in flood control and public works projects. The timing is no accident. With ₱1 trillion spent on flood control in just three years and Metro Manila still drowning in knee-deep water, public outrage has reached a boiling point. But is EO 94 a sincere attempt to clean house—or a strategic maneuver to redirect blame and consolidate control?
EO 94 grants the ICI sweeping powers: subpoena authority, access to bank records, coordination with the DOJ for witness protection, and the ability to freeze assets. Its mandate spans a decade of infrastructure spending—from Aquino’s PPP to Duterte’s Build Build Build and Marcos’ own Build Better More. The scope is ambitious. The structure, promising. But the devil, as always, is in the implementation.
Rumored appointees include retired Justices and forensic auditors—figures with reputations for independence. Yet the EO remains silent on how commissioners will be selected, and whether political vetting will dilute their autonomy. Without a transparent appointment process, the ICI risks becoming another bureaucratic fig leaf.
The flood control controversy has exposed a contractor cartel allegedly tied to lawmakers and DPWH officials. Whistleblowers claim that 15 firms cornered ₱100 billion in contracts, many of which were ghost projects. Senator Lacson’s Blue Ribbon Committee is now investigating, and Speaker Martin Romualdez—cousin to the President—is whispered to be the “man who should not be named,” a central figure in budget insertions and caretaker appointments.
EO 94 arrives not as a proactive reform, but as a reactive shield—issued days after Romualdez was implicated and Senator Escudero was ousted as Senate President, allegedly for resisting political pressure. The optics suggest a gambit: create a commission, appear decisive, and deflect scrutiny from the House leadership.
To be fair, EO 94 responds to real public demand. Over 12,000 complaints were filed on the “Sumbong sa Pangulo” portal in August alone. Citizens are not just angry—they’re informed. They know that infrastructure corruption isn’t just about missing roads or faulty drainage. It’s about lost lives, displaced families, and billions siphoned from education, health, and climate resilience.
But genuine reform requires more than executive orders. It demands institutional courage—from Congress, the judiciary, and civil society. It requires naming names, prosecuting allies, and protecting whistleblowers. It means letting the ICI investigate without interference, even if the trail leads to the President’s own circle.
EO 94 could be the beginning of a national reckoning—or a masterclass in political containment. Its success will depend not on its text, but on its execution. Will the Commission act independently? Will it publish findings? Will it hold the powerful accountable? Or will it put all the blame on political adversaries?
In a country where floodwaters rise faster than reform, we, the sovereign Filipino people, deserve more than symbolism. We deserve justice. And we are watching CLOSELY.