Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

There is one thing I have always appreciated about meeting people from different communities. No matter where the conversation begins, it eventually finds its way to the things that matter most in everyday life.

The national budget is no exception. During my years at the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), I discovered that what people wanted was not a lesson in public finance but to understand how the budget affects them—where public funds go, how and why certain programs are receiving more support, and how government decisions ultimately find their way into classrooms, hospitals, farms, and neighborhoods.

That is why the results of the 2025 Open Budget Survey remind me of the work we pursued at the DBM.

The Philippines received a transparency score of 76 out of 100, well above the global average of 45 and higher by one point than the 2023 OBS Survey result. I welcome this, not just because of the number but because I knew the work behind it. Progress in transparency does not happen overnight. It comes from years of improving how information is prepared, presented, and shared so that more people can actually understand it. To me, that is what makes this result meaningful. Transparency is not only about making information available—it is about making it useful to the people it belongs to.

The Open Budget Survey is conducted every two years by the International Budget Partnership. It looks at how governments publish budget information, whether people are given opportunities to take part in discussions, and how spending is reviewed once funds are already in motion. It also asks a question that often matters more: can someone outside government actually make sense of what is being shared without needing it translated first?

At the DBM, I would often return to that question because we wanted to ensure that budget documents were clear to someone outside government reading them for the first time. This is also why we strengthened the People’s Budget, so that the national budget would not feel locked in technical language. We also worked on making key documents easier to locate and navigate, especially for those who were genuinely interested but unsure where to begin. Even word choices that seemed minor were given attention, since unclear language can quietly exclude people without any intention to do so. At times, we would go back to entire sections to make sure they still made sense when read outside a technical room. The survey reflects how this kind of work continues in different ways.

The Philippines recorded a public participation score of 37 out of 100, above the global average of 17, which means that people can join discussions on public spending in spaces such as community consultations, feedback sessions, and engagements with civil society groups. In reality, though, these spaces are experienced unevenly. Some communities hear about them early and take part regularly. Others only learn about them after decisions have already been made. And many who would willingly participate but never encounter the opportunity. Participation, in the end, is not only about whether spaces exist, but whether people can actually reach them in time to be heard.

The Philippines also received a budget oversight score of 68 out of 100, reflecting the work of institutions that examine how public funds are handled once the budget is approved. It usually happens after public attention has shifted elsewhere—through audits, hearings, and formal reviews that unfold over time. Still, it matters because it ensures that decisions are not left untouched once approved. It is a slower process, but it is where questions are asked even when the public conversation has moved on.

Some of the clearest memories I have from public service did not come from formal meetings. They came afterward, in small, unplanned exchanges, like when a parent would speak softly about whether assistance programs would arrive before the school year began. A local official would describe the difficulty of explaining national programs in ways that felt real to people in their community. None of these moments was dramatic, but they were honest—and they often revealed more than any formal presentation.

Over time, it became clear to me that information and understanding are not the same thing. Information can be published, uploaded, and distributed. Understanding happens only when someone can connect that information to their own life without needing help to decode it first.

Beyond budget, the results of this year's Open Budget Survey remind us that making government more open is a continuing responsibility. We can publish more information, improve our systems, and strengthen our processes, but those efforts only matter when people can understand what they are seeing. That has always been the part of public service that stayed with me the most.

As Citizen Mina, this year's survey reminded me that every effort to make government easier to understand is time well spent. The budget may begin with numbers, but it finds its meaning in the people whose lives it touches.

(Amenah F. Pangandaman is the former Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management.)