THE decision to livestream the bicameral conference committee (bicam) deliberations on the national budget is, without a doubt, a step in the right direction.
For decades, the bicam has not been the most transparent stage of the budget process. It was shielded from public scrutiny and widely perceived as the point where last-minute insertions, reallocations, and political accommodations are quietly made.
Opening this forum to the public marks an important acknowledgment that transparency must extend beyond plenary debates and committee hearings.
From a governance perspective, the move carries real symbolic and practical value.
Symbolically, it signals sensitivity to public distrust surrounding the budget process, particularly after successive controversies involving alleged “insertions,” realignments favoring politically powerful actors, and weak accountability mechanisms.
In practice, livestreaming creates at least a deterrent against the most blatant forms of abuse.
Legislators are now conscious that their statements, positions, and behavior are part of the public record and can be scrutinized in real time by media, civil society, and taxpayers.
However, the red flags are equally evident, and they underscore why transparency must be substantive, not merely performative.
First, visibility does not automatically translate to clarity.
While the discussions may be public, the documents that truly matter, including detailed line-item changes, justifications for reallocations, and the identities of proponents of specific amendments, are often not presented in a manner that is intelligible to ordinary citizens.
Without timely public access to comparative budget matrices and itemized changes, livestreaming risks becoming a transparency gesture that informs without empowering.
Second, there remains the unresolved issue of what happens off-camera.
Informal negotiations, caucuses, and political bargains frequently occur outside the formal session.
If critical decisions are merely ratified onstream after being settled elsewhere, the core problem of back-door decision-making persists, although with better optics.
Third, the concentration of power within the bicam itself remains a big concern.
A small group of lawmakers continues to wield disproportionate influence over final budget outcomes, often overriding provisions already debated and approved in both chambers.
Livestreaming does not, by itself, ensure that bicam actions faithfully reflect legislative intent.
But the start of livestreamed bicam deliberations represents a cautious step in the right direction. It acknowledges that secrecy can no longer be defended in an era of heightened public demand for accountability.
But it also highlights the limits of procedural transparency without deeper reforms: clearer documentation, stronger rules against last-minute insertions, and mechanisms to trace responsibility for budget changes.
The challenge now is to ensure that this auspicious start is not a one-off concession to public pressure, but the beginning of a real and sustained effort to make the national budget not only visible, but genuinely accountable.
