THE INDEPENDENT Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) was created with one promise above all: transparency. Its hearings are designed to be livestreamed, open to the public, and subject to scrutiny. It is an institutional recognition that sunlight is the strongest disinfectant. That is why Land Bank of the Philippines’ recent request for an executive session, or a closed-door meeting away from the public eye, has triggered debate far beyond the walls of the hearing room.
Under ICI guidelines, executive sessions are not prohibited. Government agencies, resource persons, and witnesses may request a private meeting when circumstances require confidentiality. This is not unusual. Sensitive financial records, bank secrecy concerns, pending investigations, or matters involving national security may legitimately necessitate a pause from public view.
But the mere fact that something is allowed does not mean its use is beyond critique especially when the requesting party is a major state-owned bank intertwined with public funds, public trust, and public responsibility.
Land Bank’s role in government financing makes it a central figure in any inquiry involving irregularities or questionable transactions. It is precisely because of this critical position that maximum transparency is expected, if not demanded. When a bank handling billions in public resources prefers to speak privately rather than publicly, eyebrows will inevitably rise.
The public understands that some information must remain confidential, particularly when regulated by statutes like the Bank Secrecy Law. However, what concerns many observers is the potential for the executive-session mechanism to become a shield rather than a safeguard. It is a tool invoked not for legitimate confidentiality, but to control narrative, limit accountability, or soften the blow of public scrutiny.
This tension between transparency and confidentiality is at the heart of democratic oversight. Institutions like the ICI were built to rebuild trust at a time when faith in government processes is fragile. Livestreamed hearings symbolize a commitment to openness, allowing citizens to listen, judge, and question. Executive sessions, on the other hand, can symbolize the opposite unless their use is sparingly justified and clearly explained.
Thus, the key question is not whether Land Bank can request a secret meeting, but whether it should. And if it must, what exactly prevents the bank from stating, even briefly, the general nature of the confidentiality? The public does not need the details but it deserves an explanation.
A democratic system does not collapse when a meeting is closed. But it begins to crack when secrecy becomes habit rather than exception.
For the ICI, the challenge is twofold: to honor the rules permitting executive sessions while ensuring these do not undermine its credibility. This means setting and enforcing a high bar for confidentiality requests, requiring agencies to justify why the public must be temporarily excluded.
For Land Bank, the challenge is transparency. As a government financial institution entrusted with public money, its default stance should be openness. If confidentiality is unavoidable, the public must at least know why.
The ICI was envisioned as a new model of accountability in an era of suspicion. How it balances transparency with legitimate secrecy will determine whether it fulfills that promise or becomes yet another body whose doors close too often, and for reasons too unclear.
In matters involving the people’s money, trust is not built in the shadows but in the light./PN
