TWO WEBSITES have been made by the government in response to the anomalous infrastructure projects throughout the country. Pioneered by the Sumbong sa Pangulo website, followed by the DPWH Transparency Portal, the Marcos Jr. administration has touted these as ways to build a “digital wall against corruption,” as well as avenues for public participation in investigations. Yet, despite the President’s optimism, much is to be seen in how transparency platforms have actually fought government corruption.

Before the two sites, other platforms were already available for the public, like the national government portal and the freedom of information (FOI) website. Previous administrations also had websites for foreign aid and government procurements. Even then, all government sites display the transparency seal, as mandated by law, to signify effort toward openness to the public.

However, with the many public offices we have, transparency portals have also been numerous, redundant, and even inconvenient. For instance, the current FOI site delivers little of its promised transparency, as not all requests are guaranteed to be successful.

With these efforts, the question remains: have these sites done any substantial change to government transparency?

One could say it did, particularly in enabling accessible budget and financial documentation. However, the same cannot be said for addressing corruption. So far, only a few have been arrested for the flood control scandal, despite the numerous portals dedicated against corruption.

While these websites are good at keeping evidence, it only achieves transparency halfway through. To be transparent about corruption is one thing, but to hold people accountable for it is another.

Thus, as the administration pursues e-governance, it must rethink its ways in making itself open to public scrutiny. As commendable strides have been made in budget transparency, focus should now be on the people who receive the budget. Officials accountable, too, must be named.

In fully realizing the transparency that the portals aim for, accountability must be found through it. It is only when these sites highlight the people behind the corruption that such efforts can be truly helpful in fighting corruption and upholding transparency.

Admittedly, however, technologies like transparency platforms are not enough to solve the issue of corruption. Technology, no matter how disruptive and persistent it has been and may further become, is not the magic wand solution we ever hope it to be. Such websites can only do so much in offering us a platform to guard our taxes.

Ultimately, it is in the practices of the government that tell us whether our taxes end up in meaningful infrastructure projects, or in the pockets of the powerful few. However, it is only through transparent and accountable institutions that graft can be eliminated from the powers that be.

Technology can indeed help in the fight against corruption, but it does not end corruption—good governance does.