Government unveils new transparency tools; critics warn of a high-tech smoke screen

By Elizze F. Serna

For the past months, government offices have begun launching new transparency portals or websites that display budgets, procurement plans, contracts, and project updates.

On the surface, this appears to be a step toward greater openness. But the first question that many citizens ask is simple: “Why only now?”

Transparency is not a new idea. It is a basic duty of public service. These portals should have existed long before corruption complaints filled social media. Because they appeared only after one controversy after another, it is fair for the public to question whether this is genuine reform or just another way to pacify criticism.

The skepticism is justified. Many agencies have been caught engaging in dishonest practices, such as overpriced purchases, ghost projects, questionable imports, padded budgets, and bidding results that appear predetermined long before the official opening of bids.

Time and time again, we see COA findings that expose serious issues, only for the concerned agency to release the same tired line: “No irregularities found,” even when documents tell a different story. Some agencies publish reports only when they are pressured to do so. Others leave out the most important details.

Several transparency portals launch with big announcements but stop updating once public attention fades. How can anyone trust a system built on selective disclosure?

To give credit where it is due, not all agencies are pretending. Some government offices livestream their bidding sessions, showing how bids are opened, prices are compared, and decisions are made.

These efforts are done in good faith and demonstrate that there are people inside the government who want a cleaner system. Livestreams bring people closer to the process and make corruption harder to hide.

But these efforts face a big problem: awareness. Government procurement is technical.

It involves rules and terms that most citizens rarely encounter. So even when the information is public, very few people watch or understand it. Many only pay attention when a scandal goes viral, an overpriced item becomes a trending topic, a suspicious contract emerges, or a whistleblower speaks out.

Outside of those moments, transparency portals are often ignored, and livestreams receive minimal viewers. The information is there, but the public does not always know how to engage with it.

Meanwhile, the government is embracing new technologies such as AI auditing tools, digital procurement systems, automated dashboards, and blockchain-based records.

These tools promise improved accuracy and cleaner processes. But we must ask a difficult question: Are these technologies actually strengthening transparency, or are they becoming new ways to mask the same old problems?

Technology can reveal corruption, but it can also hide it if dishonest agencies control the system. A modern, polished dashboard means nothing if the data inside it is manipulated.

A digital archive is useless if key documents are still withheld. Technology does not fix dishonesty; it only changes the format in which dishonesty can operate.

This brings us to the public’s role. Transparency cannot work if only the government is involved. We, the citizens, must also pay attention, not just during scandals, not only when anger pushes us to react, but consistently.

Public funds are our funds. The projects being built affect our communities. The contracts being signed use our taxes. Understanding how procurement works, even at a basic level, is part of responsible citizenship. We cannot expect transparency to thrive if we are only watching during the worst days.

The real question, then, is this: Are transparency portals signs of true progress, or are they simply another illusion designed to calm the public? The answer depends on what happens next.

Will these portals remain updated even when the numbers are inconvenient? Will livestreams continue even when an agency is under scrutiny? Will new technologies expose irregularities or cover them up behind digital complexity?

And it depends on us, too. Transparency only works when people are watching, asking questions, and holding institutions accountable.

If the government can remain honest and consistent, and if we as citizens stay informed and engaged, then perhaps these portals will finally become what they were supposed to be from the beginning: not tools for public relations, but windows into the true workings of our country.

(About the author: Elizze F. Serna is a public health advocate, currently based in the United States while continuing to contribute to health and cybersecurity initiatives in her home country, the Philippines. She became interested in cybersecurity while investigating the protection of sensitive health and medical data, which led her to explore broader issues in digital safety, data privacy, and cyber threat monitoring. As a writer, she covers topics at the intersection of medicine, technology, and cybersecurity, translating complex issues into clear, actionable insights for the public.)