ICIs Resolve: Pursuing Restitution Beyond Prosecution
The Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) is widening its mission from prosecuting alleged offenders to recovering assets bought with public money. In a high‑level briefing at the ICI headquarters, Chairman Andres Reyes Jr. underscored that justice alone is not enough to heal the nation. Restitution — returning stolen funds and providing equivalent remedies — is now a core objective alongside indictments in the ongoing flood control scandal that shook the country’s infrastructure program.
Reyes, a former Supreme Court justice, defined restitution as the act of making good or giving equivalent for losses and injuries sustained by the public. He asserted that the “funds that should have built schools, hospitals and roads” instead funded luxury cars, vacations and casino gambling for a few, signaling a broader plan to recover assets from those implicated in anomalous flood control projects.
Evidence Mounts Against the Discaya Couple
ICI special adviser Rodolfo Azurin Jr. announced that investigators have amassed enough evidence to file charges against contractor couple Cezarah Rowena “Sarah” Discaya and Pacifico “Curlee” Discaya. The probe has uncovered extensive irregularities across projects linked to the Discayas, who reportedly participated in about 1,000 contracts with the Department of Public Works and Highways. That scope potentially translates into numerous criminal cases as the investigation progresses.
Azurin noted that the Discayas initially agreed to testify but later chose not to cooperate, invoking their right against self‑incrimination. Despite this withdrawal, the ICI says it will continue gathering evidence and building cases to seek restitution on behalf of the Filipino people. The commission also suggested potential recommendations to the Department of Justice, including the possible removal of the Discayas from the Witness Protection Program given their stance.
Cooperating Agencies and the Roadmap for Asset Recovery
Attending the ICI asset recovery meeting were key government players: Public Works Secretary Vince Dizon, Customs Commissioner Ariel Nepomuceno, and representatives from the Justice Department, Anti‑Money Laundering Council, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Land Transportation Office, National Bureau of Investigation, Presidential Commission on Good Government, and Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines. The assembled group pledged cooperation to retrieve ill‑gotten funds and ensure accountability across federal agencies.
ICI Executive Director Brian Keith Hosaka stressed that the investigation would proceed despite the Discayas’ decision not to cooperate. He emphasized that ongoing witness statements and documentary evidence already collected provide a solid basis to advance cases and recommendations to the Ombudsman. A series of follow‑up coordination meetings is planned for next week to finalize the operational framework, establish a recovery timeline, and rough estimates of the funds at stake.
Broader Mandate: Healing the Nation Through Restitution
Reyes described restitution as “the act of making good or giving equivalent for any loss, damage or injury and indemnification.” He framed asset recovery as a necessary complement to judicial action: even when offenders are prosecuted and jailed, the public demands that misused public funds be returned. The ICI’s push for restitution aligns with its mandate to hear, investigate, and evaluate evidence of anomalies across flood control and other nationwide infrastructure projects. The aim is to ensure that money previously diverted for private gains is redirected toward essential public services and future resilience projects.
The evolving case against the Discayas, and the broader initiative to claw back public funds, signals a strengthened stance against corruption in infrastructure. By coupling legal action with restitution efforts, the ICI seeks to restore public trust and reinforce fiscal discipline in government projects that affect millions of Filipinos.
What This Means for the Public
For citizens, these developments represent a potential turning point in the fight against graft in public works. If restitution succeeds, the government could channel recovered assets into social programs, infrastructure upgrades, and job-creating projects. While the legal process continues, advocates say the asset recovery drive sends a powerful message: misuse of public funds has consequences beyond criminal charges—money owed to the people will be returned with interest where appropriate.
