IMAGINE an ordinary Filipino trying to examine flood-control spending in their province. They want to compare project costs, contractors, locations and completion rates — not because they are journalists, but because their community keeps flooding despite billions in public spending.
In September 2025, a citizen requested Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) flood-control project data in CSV or Excel format. The response stated that no flood-control map database was posted on the DPWH website. The citizen was left with the option of appealing the decision. In another case, the DPWH approved a request for a project list but instructed the requester to check a private email for the data. (DPWH flood-control request, DPWH project-list request)
This is the fundamental weakness of permission-based transparency.
Even when information is eventually released, it may not become a searchable, reusable public dataset. The next citizen must ask again. They may need to register, submit identification, find the correct agency and wait for approval. Although filing an FOI request is supposed to be free, some requests for government-held datasets have been redirected to services requiring processing fees. (eFOI example)
Why should citizens pay again for nonconfidential data already collected and maintained using public funds?
Other countries have moved toward disclosure by default. In the United Kingdom, Cabinet Office transactions above £25,000 are published regularly as downloadable CSV files. Public procurement notices can also be downloaded in standardized JSON through an API using the Open Contracting Data Standard. Citizens, researchers and civic technology groups can analyze spending without first explaining who they are or why they want the information. (UK spending data, UK open-contracting system)
The Philippines already adopted similar principles in 2015: Government datasets should be publicly accessible by default, machine-readable, openly licensed and regularly updated. The policy exists. The culture and enforcement do not. (Open Government Data Guidelines)
This lack of transparency has consequences. Without structured data, citizens cannot easily detect duplicated projects, unusual prices, recurring contractors or payments for unfinished work. Watchdogs are blindsided because the evidence needed to raise an alarm is fragmented or inaccessible.
Organizations such as PCIJ may have investigators, lawyers, contacts and institutional experience. Ordinary citizens usually do not. Transparency should not depend on belonging to a media organization or having the resources to fight through bureaucracy.
Public records should be open unless a specific lawful exception applies, such as national security, personal privacy or an ongoing investigation.
FOI must remain available for exceptional requests. But it should never substitute for the government's duty to publish.
Because when people have no data, they have no practical tool to question power — and corruption thrives where evidence is hardest to see.
