De Lima questions ICI’s livestream stance amid transparency concerns
Filipino lawmaker Leila de Lima has publicly challenged the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) over its continued refusal to livestream its hearings. Speaking on Saturday, October 11, she questioned whether the stance reflects the wishes of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and urged the independent body to embrace openness at a time when public trust in oversight is fragile.
“Pag sinabing ‘independent’ commission, hindi ibig sabihin, magsasarili na lang, magso-solo. Ito bang pagmamatigas ng ICI, ito rin ba ang gusto ng Pangulo?” De Lima said, underscoring the expectation that an ostensibly independent institution should maintain transparency rather than operate in a vacuum.
De Lima stressed that a public-facing inquiry, especially one dealing with infrastructure and governance, must be transparent. She argued that livestreaming hearings would help calm fears and prevent perceptions of a cover-up or whitewash as the investigation proceeds. In her view, government bodies created to safeguard the public interest owe it to citizens to show their work in real time, not after-the-fact summaries.
The broader context: transparency versus control
The ICI, established under Executive Order No. 94, has faced persistent calls for openness from lawmakers and civil society alike. De Lima pointed to a series of questions about whether the body’s current operating mode aligns with the public’s right to know, especially while the House of Representatives’ Infra Committee inquiry remains suspended and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has yet to schedule hearings. The absence of a livestream, she argues, elevates the risk of suspicion and undermines accountability.
ICI officials, including Executive Director Brian Hosaka, have previously defended the commission’s stance by citing concerns over information that has not yet been verified. Officials warn that broadcasting unverified claims could mislead the public and become fodder for political agendas. De Lima, however, contends that transparency does not require revealing unverified material; rather, it means offering ongoing access to the process while clearly labeling unconfirmed aspects as preliminary and subject to verification.
Calls for stronger oversight powers and urgent reform
Beyond livestreaming, De Lima indicated that the ICI’s effectiveness hinges on expanded authority. She noted that while transparency is vital, it must be paired with robust powers to investigate, sanction, and compel cooperation. She cited House Bill No. 4453, which, she said, would strengthen the commission’s mandates and provide the tools necessary to conduct thorough investigations.
“That’s exactly why we have been pushing, along with the co-authors of House Bill No. 4453, to complement it and make it stronger,” De Lima stated. She also pressed for quicker action from the House leadership to finalize and certify the bill as urgent, arguing that delays undermine public confidence and slow down critical reform efforts.
Public expectations and the timeline of inquiries
As inquiries into infrastructure projects and governance mechanisms unfold, Filipinos are seeking timely updates on the pace and outcomes of investigations. De Lima pointed out that with the House Infra Committee inquiry suspended and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee yet to schedule hearings, the public is left waiting for clarity on progress and findings. Livestreaming is framed by De Lima as a practical measure to keep the process transparent while maintaining the integrity and verified status of any disclosed information.
The debate over livestreaming touches on a larger international trend: governing bodies wrestling with how to balance openness with the need to protect sensitive or still-unverified data. In this case, advocates of livestreaming argue that real-time access to proceedings is a cornerstone of democratic governance and public accountability. Opponents caution that premature broadcasting could distort the record.
Looking ahead: accountability as a shared objective
De Lima’s stance reflects a broader call for a governance framework where transparency and reform go hand in hand. If President Marcos is truly aligned with popular demands for openness, she suggests, he should urge the ICI to adopt livestreaming and to push for the swift passage of strengthening legislation. The combination of real-time transparency and enhanced investigative powers could, in her view, reassure the public that infrastructure oversight is conducted without fear or favoritism and with a clear timeline for results.
As the discourse evolves, stakeholders from lawmakers to civil society will watch how the ICI responds to these appeals for openness and how quickly the House and Senate move to empower the commission. The central question remains: can transparency and robust investigative authority coexist to deliver credible, timely accountability?
