Growing push for a permanent anti-graft body in infrastructure
The Philippines faces renewed calls to establish a permanent infrastructure anti-graft body after a recent resignation intensified concerns over corruption in the sector. The departure of Rossana Fajardo, a former ad hoc commissioner tasked with rooting out irregularities, underscored the fragility of temporary measures and the need for a lasting, independent watchdog.
Proponents argue that a standing body dedicated to infrastructure governance could provide continuous oversight, deter malfeasance, and strengthen accountability across agencies involved in roads, bridges, rail, and other big-ticket projects. By institutionalizing anti-corruption mechanisms, critics say the government could reduce delays, inflate costs, and promote more transparent procurement processes that benefit taxpayers and responsible contractors alike.
From ad hoc to permanent: lessons from recent events
The ad hoc commissioners were established as a rapid response to a string of anomalies. While they made some progress, observers contend that temporary panels lack the permanence and authority needed to sustain reforms. Rossana Fajardo’s resignation has been interpreted by many as a sign that political pressure and temporary mandates can undermine long-term reform agendas. Advocates insist that a permanent body would have clearly defined powers, a stable funding stream, and an ongoing mandate to monitor infrastructure procurement, bidding, and project implementation.
Transparency advocates emphasize the importance of independent investigations, public reporting, and sustained whistleblower protections. A permanent infrastructure anti-graft entity could coordinate with the Commission on Audit, the Office of the Ombudsman, and anti-corruption units within major public works agencies. In doing so, it would help build a consistent culture of integrity across government, contractors, and suppliers involved in critical infrastructure.
What a permanent body could look like
Experts outline several key features that would distinguish a permanent anti-graft institution from its ad hoc predecessors:
- Legal mandate with clear jurisdiction over infrastructure projects, procurement, and contract enforcement.
- Independent leadership and protected funding to prevent political manipulation.
- Regular audits, risk assessments, and public dashboards showing project timelines, budgets, and contractor performance.
- Whistleblower protections and safe channels for reporting irregularities within the infrastructure sector.
- Interagency coordination to ensure findings translate into timely corrective actions and policy reforms.
Implications for governance and public trust
For taxpayers, the central promise of a permanent anti-graft body is greater accountability. By exposing red flags early and enforcing consequences for bid-rigging, collusion, and project overruns, the agency could curb the inefficiencies that plague large-scale public works. Investors and development partners often weigh governance indicators when deciding where to allocate resources. A credible, durable anti-corruption framework could boost confidence and potentially unlock easier financing for infrastructure programs.
Opponents may warn about bureaucratic bloat or potential political misuse. However, proponents argue that the alternative—keeping a volatile, ad hoc approach—poses a greater risk to project integrity. The ongoing debate centers on how to design a system with strong oversight, meaningful accountability, and practical enforcement that remains insulated from partisan cycles.
Next steps for policymakers
Lawmakers, civil society groups, and oversight bodies must collaborate to draft a concrete framework. Key tasks include delineating the authority of the permanent body, specifying funding mechanisms, and outlining a phased implementation plan that protects independence while enabling quick action on urgent cases. Public consultations, international best practices, and benchmarking against established anti-corruption models could help shape a robust blueprint.
As the infrastructure sector in the Philippines continues to expand, the call for a permanent anti-graft institution intensifies. The question now is whether reforms can move from response to resilience—transforming governance so that integrity becomes the default standard for every road, bridge, and port project.
