When something goes wrong in government, one of the first responses is to bring in citizens. The proposed Independent People’s Commission (IPC) to probe flood control project anomalies is an example of that. It envisions community participation as one of its pillars.
We form people’s commissions, citizen panels, or volunteer watchdogs to investigate and repair the damage. The intention is good, but the timing reveals a flaw because citizen participation comes in after the flood, not before it. Best to have citizen participation before the problem exists.
Participation should not begin where there already is corruption. It should be part of the design of governance, not its emergency measure. Yet, our public culture treats participation as a cure for crisis instead of a guardrail against it. We invite citizens to expose wrongdoing, not to prevent it.
This is becoming a pattern in the response to the flood control project scandal. The proposal in Congress to create the IPC aims to hold those responsible to account. Under the proposal, the IPC would be composed of various stakeholders from different sectors of society to ensure a balanced, independent and effective investigative body. Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan hopes the bill will be approved before Christmas to speed up the investigation. The plan would give the IPC power to request search and seizure orders, freeze bank accounts and work with the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice.
It is not clear yet what the proposed IPC would define as community participation but it expectedly would include civil society and nongovernment organizations representation and ways to institutionalize multi-sectoral participation.
Compare this to the approach suggested by Dr. Vincenzo Bollettino of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative and Dr. Pamela Cajilig of the University of the Philippines. In their policy memo on strengthening integrity in flood control, they call for independent, transparent and participatory oversight from the start. They said corruption in flood control is not just about money, it is about systems that exclude science, transparency and public scrutiny.
They envision commissions made up of scientists, engineers, community leaders and civil society representatives who monitor every phase of a project, from planning to maintenance. They said Filipino researchers, who have long been on the frontlines of disaster risk reduction, must be included in all major disaster infrastructure projects.
That kind of participation requires more than invitations. It needs structure, funding and protection. Community monitors must be trained and resourced. Citizen watchdogs also need legal safeguards against intimidation and political backlash.
Real participation is not just about catching the guilty. It is about designing honesty and transparency into the process by giving citizens access and voice before decisions are made and money is spent. When citizen participation is there from the start, oversight becomes part of the culture. Not an emergency response.
The next time there’s a proposal to create a people’s commission, we should ask: Why weren’t the people there from the beginning?