Transparency is essential in governance. It builds public trust, promotes accountability and provides information about what the government is doing.
Timely, accurate and complete information is a key element of transparency. Without it, the public will end up creating its own narrative or assumptions about what’s happening in the country.
To verify information, counterchecking is often necessary. This way, misinformation is restrained through a system of checks and balances.
Transparency is the very reason why I believe that the hearings of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) created by President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. to probe alleged kickbacks in the country’s flood control projects should be made open to the public.
Counterchecking is also the reason why I favor the continuation of the hearings being done by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on the matter.
I have no issues with Presidential Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro’s assurances that the ICI will examine all evidence from all available avenues as the body is founded on “impartiality, integrity and freedom from undue influence.”
I find it unfortunate, however, that the ICI prefers to conduct closed-door hearings, with its executive director, Brian Hosaka, saying that it is “a very dangerous thing if we livestreamed it and at the same time, people might be misled. (We) want the people to trust (that) we will be doing our job fairly, objectively and independently.”
If that isn’t doublespeak, then I don’t know what is.
The House of Representatives has meanwhile suspended its inquiry into the flood control mess to “give way” to the ICI investigation. Speaker Faustino Dy III is soon set to turn over transcripts, documents and evidences of the lower house to the ICI.
Fortunately, that hasn’t stopped the Senate from pursuing its investigation into the scandal, with Blue Ribbon Committee Chairman Panfilo Lacson leading the charge in aid of legislation.
To me, this Senate move is most welcome. With the lower house having given up its investigation, the Senate’s hearings will now serve as the only credible official countercheck the country will have to balance out whatever information might come from the ICI, if at all.
Besides, the two investigations serve distinct purposes. One is a fact-finding probe, while the other is being done in aid of legislation.
But considering its preference for closed-door hearings, the ICI would most likely leave the public hanging over its proceedings. We thus need the Senate as a parallel source of information, lest people end up creating their own conclusions based on speculations or, worse, fake news.
The relationship between the ICI and Senate investigations is very much like the electoral counts of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel).
While the Comelec count is the one that’s official, a parallel tabulation by Namfrel is needed to verify the official count, thus helping build public confidence in the elections.
The same can be said of the ICI and Senate probes. We need both to proceed independently of each other. Especially when one is silent, as the ICI seems positioned to become, the people need to see and hear a transparent counterpart investigation that is timely, accurate and complete.
Neither one should have a monopoly of information. In carrying out their investigative functions, both the ICI and the Senate must satisfy the public’s need to form an enlightened opinion that will henceforth serve as a basis of action for the country’s future.