Manila, Philippines — A setback for investigators
In a surprising turn of events, controversial flood-control contractors Sarah and Curlee Discaya have announced they will no longer cooperate with the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI). The disclosure, delivered by ICI Executive Director Brian Hosaka at a Wednesday press conference, confirms that the couple invoked their right against self-incrimination and will not participate further in the commission’s probe.
What the withdrawal means for the investigation
Hosaka stated that despite the withdrawal, the investigation will press on. He noted that the ICI has already secured a range of documents from the couple, which can be used to advance the inquiry even without their direct testimony. The commission’s evidence collection, including prior interviews and collected records, remains a key component of the ongoing process.
Context and potential implications
The developments come amid ongoing scrutiny of flood-control projects associated with the Discayas. The ICI’s mandate is to scrutinize infrastructure projects to ensure accountability, transparency, and compliance with public funds usage. The couple’s decision to decline further cooperation could complicate attempts to obtain firsthand accounts but does not halt potential findings from documentary evidence already in the commission’s possession.
Why the Discaya statements drew attention
Hosaka referenced a widely watched interview in which Rogelio “Babes” Singson, the ICI commissioner and former public works secretary, suggested the couple were not being considered as state witnesses. The interview, conducted by journalist Karen Davila, influenced public perception around potential witness status and assisted or hindered expectations of any favorable recommendations from the commission. The video of the interview was released on October 13, adding to the public discourse surrounding the case.
What happens next for the ICI
With or without the Discayas’ cooperation, the ICI plans to continue its procedures, including interviewing other involved parties, reviewing contracts, and examining procurement records. The commission’s ability to draw conclusions will depend on the breadth and strength of the documentary evidence and any corroborating testimony that other witnesses can provide. Given the complexity of infrastructure investigations, this phase may require additional time as officers piece together a complete picture of the project administration and funding flows.
Local impact and public interest
Flood-control projects are critical to provincial and urban resilience in the Philippines. The ICI’s work aims to safeguard taxpayer money and ensure that infrastructure projects meet established standards. The Discayas’ withdrawal from cooperation may spark renewed calls for transparency and could accelerate reforms or tighter oversight in similar public works ventures.
Statements from the ICI
Executive Director Hosaka emphasized that the commission remains committed to a thorough and fair inquiry. He reiterated that cooperation from other stakeholders and access to documents will continue to drive the investigation forward, regardless of the Discayas’ current position. The ICI has not announced any changes to its timeline or findings, and further updates are anticipated as the process unfolds.
A careful look at the road ahead
As the inquiry evolves, observers will be watching how auditors, lawyers, and policymakers respond to developments. The Discayas’ stance highlights the delicate balance between individual rights and public accountability in high-profile infrastructure investigations. For voters and taxpayers, the core question remains: will the ICI’s findings guide future procurement decisions and improve oversight of critical flood-control projects?
