The People’s Coalition for Good Governance (PCGG) is demanding that the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) adopt more transparent practices like making public hearings and releasing detailed reports of their investigation to regain public trust.
PCGG convenor Wennie Sancho said the ICI was established to investigate and oversee infrastructure projects, ensuring transparency and accountability.
However, its policy of not making public hearings has raised suspicion and criticism. As a result the ICI’s reputation has taken a hit. If transparency and accountability are the twin pillars of justice to punish those corrupt politicians who plundered the government coffers, they should not deny the right of the people to listen to the arguments on how the most daring form of deceit and manipulation was done to perpetuate the flood control projects scams involving senators and congressmen who are supposed to be the servants of the people, he said.
The lack of transparency has led to accusations of secretly and cover-ups eroding public trust on the ICI who are supposed to set an example of transparency and accountability.
Holding meetings will erode public trust and confidence in government institutions like ICI in its ability to conduct impartial and effective investigation, he added.
Sancho, in a press statement, invoked Art. 2 Sec, 28 of the Philippine Constitution in the Declaration of State Principles and Policies that “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopt and implement a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interests. Full Disclosure by the State of all its transactions Sec. 7 of the Bill of Rights Art. III guarantees the people’s right of information on matters of public concern and access to records pertaining to official transactions of the government.
He further asserted that Art. II Sec. 28 requires the State to make public its transactions without demand from individual citizens. The policy of full disclosure is in line with the constitutional mandate of an open, accountable and transparent government.
The ICI’s policy of confidentiality may have been intended to protect sensitive information to facilitate honest testimony, but it has ultimately had the opposite effect. By shrouding its proceedings in secrecy, ICI created an aura of mystery and suspicion, fueling speculations and criticism. In the eyes of the public, the ICI’s lack of transparency has transformed it from an independent watchdog into an institution that seems more interested in concealing the truth than revealing it. The policy of not making public hearings violates Art. II Sec. 28 of the Philippine Constitution on the policy of full public disclosure, Sancho said.
“Only through transparency and accountability can ICI restore its reputation and demonstrate commitment to serving public interest. The people have the right to know about information that affects their welfare. We are a democratic republic and not a police state. Secrecy often leads to betrayal of public trust,” he added.*
