Transparency has long been a buzzword in relation to the goal of accountable, efficient, effective and participative governance, (think of Transparency International and its reports on corruption.)
In this country in 2011, the Department of Interior & Local Government mandated the implementation of a Full Disclosure Policy that required local government units to post their financial and procurement-related data on their websites.
And even before that, then-Mayor Robredo’s Naga City already had much more information online about the City government, demonstrating his own open-data initiative.
With technology making transparency more possible and accessible than ever, an international consortium is currently conducting research in the Philippines on Open Local Government Data: what data is available online, whether it is being accessed and used by civil society, and what the implications of access to government data might be for development. Their research team held consultations and interviews in Dumaguete a few days ago.
Some questions and insights emerged. First of all, it would seem that little local data is available online, and where it exists, certainly far less than the 15 items the researchers asked about (among which: annual budget, sources and amounts of LGU funds, procurement-related information, LGU employee information and salaries, cost and status of projects, loan/debt payments, disaster risk reduction and management reports and expenditures, GAD accomplishment reports, etc.)
Presumably, the data exists in the different local government offices and is accurate, but needs to be pulled together into a readily-understandable online presentation, by a point person or unit that will also ensure updated information.
This is different from the data provided by LGU investment offices that aim to present the attractions and advantages of specific areas in the country for investment.
Rather, the purpose of the open -data idea, apart from being an anti-corruption strategy (for which reason alone it should be adopted by all LGUs), is to bring government action and processes closer to the scrutiny, understanding, and also cooperation of the people.
All of which presumes that citizens are not passive bystanders but keep abreast with developments.
People could then, for example, assess and express themselves on whether their needs and priorities are responded to by government projects and expenditures. That’s one aspect of the “participative governance” idea also behind this open-data strategy. (Now whether this form of democratic dialogue between the governed and those doing the governing is always welcome is another question!)
The issue also came up about data-generation and management in general. Particularly for demographic and social data, it requires people, time, and resources to gather information, and a good data management system for retrieval and updating.
Perhaps that’s why many LGUs often make do with out-of-date or incomplete information — is it a wonder then that there is generally little social progress to be seen?
If clear and reliable financial data had been available and posted, would the acrimonious election campaign debates have happened about Dumaguete City’s finances, about elusive funds of the Province, or on whether the municipality of Valencia could afford to continue power subsidies?
Granted that election periods are not marked by high ethics or admirable reasoning, still, correct and transparent data might have allowed for more sensible debates.
The essential role of information technology in everyone’s lives today also means that government data must be organized and made available to people who more and more will demand transparency as a principle of governance.
Without waiting for the results of the Open Local Government Data research project, incoming administrations should plan and implement not only the Full Disclosure Policy of the DILG, but expanded open- data initiatives.
