The Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) will soon livestream its hearings into the alleged corruption in flood control projects, undeniably a response to public clamor for transparency.

The move has both its advantages and disadvantages.

By opening hearings to livestream, the ICI sends a strong signal that no transaction, no testimony, no contractor-official handshake is beyond public view.

In societies where corruption has metastasized quietly behind closed doors, the glare of public scrutiny can act as a deterrent. Livestreaming hearings lifts the veil of secrecy and gives ordinary Filipinos access to the proceedings. It allows citizens to watch for themselves whether the institution is fulfilling its mandate to investigate, challenge, and hold to account. Moreover, livestreaming aids credibility and can help restore trust in the process.

If the hearings happen behind locked doors, suspicions rise. Is there something concealed or is the entire probe genuine?

Yet as Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian cautioned, public hearings are not panaceas. “People tend to act differently when there’s a public audience. These commissioners—they’re human too—and if there’s already a public watching, their demeanor or approach might change,” he warned.

When hearings are livestreamed, they risk morphing into performance rather than frank inquiry. Witnesses may posture, counsel may stage-manage, and commissioners may feel under pressure to show movement rather than seek truth.

There is also the specter of what the ICI itself called “trial by publicity”—a situation where reputations are shredded, a presumed presumption of innocence is eroded, and proceedings become soap-opera fodder rather than sober fact-finding.

Confidential- or sensitive-information-handling is another risk. If the hearings touch on national-security implications, sealed contracts, or witness protection, a livestream may expose more than good citizens should see. The commission has itself acknowledged the need to draft clear rules of procedure and parameters before going fully live.

Therefore, a balanced, legal, and prudent approach is necessary and crucial.

A hybrid model may be the better option: public enough to satisfy transparency, but protective enough to preserve due process.

Firstly, the commission should publish clear rules of procedure before livestreaming becomes routine. These rules should define what portions of the hearing are open, which segments may go into closed session, how witness anonymity is preserved, and how sensitive documents are shielded. The ICI has already committed to drafting such parameters.

Secondly, partial-livestreaming may be the prudent default: parts of the hearings where open testimony is given, where contractors and agencies testify publicly—these may go live. But segments involving classified documents, personal employment records, or testimony tied to criminal investigations may remain off-camera or accessible only via transcript.

Thirdly, recording and archiving the livestream helps ensure the public can review the proceedings and hold institutions accountable for what was said or done. But the archive should be accompanied by appropriate redactions when due-process or privacy demands it.

Fourthly, educational guidance for the public is essential: the commission should accompany livestreams with disclaimers and context—these are investigatory hearings, not final trials; testimonies are subject to verification; any conclusions represent potential recommendations, not irreversible verdicts.

Finally, the ICI should coordinate with prosecutorial agencies so that livestreaming does not jeopardize later criminal, administrative or civil actions. Public interest demands conviction of the guilty—but not at the cost of undermining the case. As the ICI has emphasized, investigation is a process, not a spectacle.

Livestreaming may be a landmark transparency effort. But without guardrails, it risks opening the door to grandstanding or pre-judgment. This is why the ICI must open its windows wide—but also keep the doors locked to bias, trial by publicity, and chaos.