MANILA — The Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) has denied reports that it ruled former House Speaker Martin Romualdez not liable in the controversy surrounding anomalous flood control projects, clarifying that its referral to the Office of the Ombudsman was misinterpreted.

On March 23, 2026, the ICI issued a statement refuting claims made by Tingog Party-list Rep. Jude Acidre, who earlier said that the commission had cleared Romualdez of accountability. Acidre cited a portion of the ICI’s referral that stated it was “issued without any finding or conclusion of guilt or liability on the part of former speaker Martin Romualdez.”

The commission stressed that this excerpt was taken out of context and did not amount to a declaration of innocence. “Rep. Acidre selectively quoted the Referral and presented this excerpt without its full context,” the ICI said, emphasizing that its role was to forward findings to the Ombudsman for further investigation, not to absolve or convict individuals.

The clarification came after accusations from Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco and youth groups that the ICI was shielding Romualdez and other officials close to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. from accountability. The Samahan ng Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) criticized the commission, saying it had “functioned less as a mechanism for accountability and more as a shield for those closest to the administration.”

Acidre, however, maintained his position, insisting that the referral explicitly stated Romualdez bore no liability. “That is not interpretation. That is a direct quotation,” he said, citing the document signed by retired Supreme Court Justice Andres Reyes, who chairs the commission.

The flood control project mess has drawn widespread scrutiny after billions of pesos were allegedly misused in infrastructure programs across several provinces. The ICI was created to investigate irregularities and recommend actions to the Ombudsman before winding up its operations at the end of March.

The commission reiterated that its mandate is limited to fact-finding and referrals, and that the Ombudsman retains full authority to determine liability and pursue charges. “Our referral is not a ruling of innocence or guilt. It is a procedural step to ensure accountability is addressed by the proper body,” the ICI explained.

The controversy continues to stir political debate, with critics demanding transparency and accountability from both the commission and the officials implicated. As the Ombudsman reviews the referral, the public awaits whether formal charges will be filed against those involved in the flood control project scandal.

This latest clarification underscores the sensitivity of the case and the importance of accurate interpretation of official documents, as political allies and critics clash over the implications of the ICI’s findings.