Transparency Reforms and Public Officials' Accountability in Philippine Public Governance: A Mechanism-Based Qualitative Systematic Review of the Disclosure-to-Consequence Pathway

Background: Transparency reforms are often presented as tools for reducing corruption, improving service delivery, and strengthening trust; however, the evidence suggests that disclosure alone does not automatically produce accountability.
Objective: This qualitative systematic review synthesizes evidence on how transparency-oriented administrative reforms shape public officials' accountability, tracing a disclosure-to-consequence pathway (disclosure, usability, scrutiny, answerability, correction or sanction, and institutional learning). Philippine evidence is analysed separately from international evidence, and the review covers publications from 2015 to 2025.
Methods: The review was PRISMA 2020-informed; its flow of records was reconstructed from the extraction matrix. Of 1,000 records screened, 55 core studies were retained (25 Philippine and 27 international primary or analytical studies, and 3 evidence syntheses) together with six official or legal-policy documents analysed as a separate stream. Evidence was coded with a documented codebook using thematic and mechanism-based synthesis; theme counts describe evidence coverage, not effect size. Appraisal rated 7 of the 52 primary studies as high, 32 as moderate, and 13 as low confidence.
Results: Evidence was concentrated on disclosure infrastructure: 32 of 52 primary or analytical studies (61.5%) were coded primarily to freedom of information, digital governance, or procurement and fiscal transparency, whereas only three (5.8%), all Philippine, were coded primarily to oversight, audit, and enforcement. Only one core study and one legal document addressed individual officials directly; most evidence concerns agencies, local governments, programmes, or governance systems. Accountability was reported to strengthen when information was timely, usable, legally supported, and connected to oversight, citizen feedback, audit follow-up, and credible sanctions, and to weaken when reforms were symbolic, portals were poorly maintained, officials lacked incentives to comply, or oversight bodies could not convert information into corrective action. Political interference and capacity constraints were reported at several points of the pathway, which supports a recursive rather than linear model.
Conclusion: The reviewed evidence suggests that transparency is an enabling input into accountability rather than a sufficient cause, and that the Philippine evidence base is disclosure-heavy and consequence-light. Transparency-oriented reform is better designed and monitored as an accountability system; an indicator set and a continuous-improvement pathway are proposed.

audit follow-up, consequence management, freedom of information, open data, procurement disclosure, systematic review

1. Aceron, J. (2019). Pitfalls of aiming to empower the bottom from the top: The case of Philippine participatory budgeting (Accountability Working Paper No. 4). Accountability Research Center & G-Watch. https://accountabilityresearch.org/publication/pitfalls-of-aiming-to-empower-the-bottom-from-the-top-the-case-of-philippine-participatory-budgeting/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adam, I., Dávid-Barrett, E., & Fazekas, M. (2025). The political economy of open contracting reforms in low- and middle-income countries. Governance, 38(2), e12897. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12897 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Alampay, E. A. (2022). Open data governance in the time of the pandemic. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494193.3494255 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Andaya, E. J., Orlina, R. J. G., & Ilustre, R. G. (2025). Digital governance in the Philippines: A scoping review of current challenges and opportunities. Global Sustainability Research, 4(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. https://doi.org/10.56556/gssr.v4i1.1204 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Arman, A., Junaidin, J., & Haeril, H. (2024). The Performance Achievement of bureaucratic reform in Bima Regency: A Perspective of Public Administration. Journal of Governance and Local Politics (JGLP), 6(2), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.47650/jglp.v6i2.1550 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Baleos, G., Garcia, L., & Pacis, J. (2017). Open data and citizen engagement, Philippines: Voice or chatter? IT for Change. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/13269 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Batalla, E. V. C. (2020). Grand corruption scandals in the Philippines. Public Administration and Policy, 23(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/pap-11-2019-0036 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Brockmyer, B. I. (n.d.). Global standards in national contexts: The role of transnational multi-stakeholder initiatives in public sector governance reform - ProQuest. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. https://www.proquest.com/openview/75c0df6323ec6ca565e2f052330ef2e5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Caballero, C. G. (2025). Assessment on the implementation of Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 (RA 9485): The case of LGU-City of Mati. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 7(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i01.35857 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Cahlikova, T., & Mabillard, V. (2019). Open Data and transparency: Opportunities and challenges in the Swiss context. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 662–686. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1657914 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Campbell, M., McKenzie, J. E., Sowden, A., Katikireddi, S. V., Brennan, S. E., Ellis, S., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Ryan, R., Shepperd, S., Thomas, J., Welch, V., & Thomson, H. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline. BMJ, 368, l6890. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Civil Service Commission. (2025). Omnibus rules on the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). Republic of the Philippines. Issued via CSC Resolution No. 2500632 dated June 25, 2025, and published on September 13, 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Contreras, G. R. C., Orate, J. C., & Pudan, J. C. (2025). Role of the Commission on Audit in a landscape of endemic corruption: The case of six government agencies in the Philippines. DIT ADS International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 1(2), 84-101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. https://doi.org/10.63941/DIT.ADSimrj.2025.1.2.12 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2018). CASP qualitative studies checklist. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Cruz, R. A., & Lee, H. J. (2019). Open Governance and Duality of Technology: The open data designer-user disconnect in the Philippines. JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 11(2), 94–118. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v11i2.545 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Custer, S., Rahemtulla, H., Kaiser, K.-A., & van den Brink, R. (2016). From pork to performance: Open government and program performance tracking in the Philippines. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. https://www.sidalc.net/search/Record/dig-okr-1098624666/Description [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. De la Cruz-Montoya, D., et al. (2025). Key factors impacting effective accountability. https://ideas.repec.org/a/aac/ijirss/v8y2025i5p2178-2186id9439.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Department of the Interior and Local Government. (2023). Amending DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2019-149 dated August 30, 2019, titled, amending DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2013-140, titled, 'Implementing guidelines on the full disclosure of local budget and finances, and bids and public offerings.' Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. https://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/issuances/memo_circulars/dilg-memocircular-202326_9136c26c0e.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Fontaine, G., Carrasco, C., & Rodrigues, C. (2022). How transparency enhances public accountability: The case of environmental governance in Chile. The Extractive Industries and Society, 9, Article 101040. 10.1016/j.exis.2021.101040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in Practice, 17(4-5), 663-671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469955 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Imasa, D. A. C., & Campos, K. P. (2024). Issues in Philippine public procurement: A content analysis of Commission on Audit annual audit reports. Community Development Journal, 8(3), 422-436. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. https://doi.org/10.33086/cdj.v8i36577 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Isbandono, P., Utami, D. A., Prastyawan, A., Gamaputra, G., & Lestari, Y. (2025). Transparency and accountability in public services and policies in administrative law: A comparative study of Indonesia and Norway. Pena Justisia, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v24i2.6029 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Janssen, M., Matheus, R., Longo, J., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Transparency-by-design as a foundation for open government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(1), 2-8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-02-2017-0015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Kamaruddin, & Afandi, S. A. (2024). Anti-corruption policy analysis: Indonesian open government study. KnE Social Sciences, 9(7), 572-589. 10.18502/kss.v9i7.15531 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Kiram, D. A. K., Kiram, M. M., Hadjibun, J.-A. A., & Taraji, M. (2025). Data governance and privacy in Sulu, Philippines: Building trust and ensuring accountability in digital public service delivery. Open Access Indonesia Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.37275/oaijss.v8i1.283 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Kusuma, A. Z., & Utama, C. (2025). Administrative law and the oversight of state finances in the digital government era. Multidisciplinary Research Studies in Social Sciences, 1(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. https://doi.org/10.71312/mrscholar.v1i2.551 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Laguna, G. B., Junsay, M. D., & Santos, E. M. (2017). Full disclosure policy compliance of the Davao del Norte Province at the FDP portal. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 7(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v7i3.11638 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Lourenco, R. P. (2015). An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 323-332. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Magtalas, A. M. F., Flores, M. J. S., Domingo, R. D., Musa, C. D. B., & Ramos, V. B. (2019). Assessing the transparency practices in public bidding of Philippine Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. Public Policy and Administration Research, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.7176/PPAR/9-2-06 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Mantaring, A. V., Espinoza, M. A. P., & Gabriel, A. G. (2019). Complaint management in the public sector organization in the Philippines. Public Policy and Administration Research, 9(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. https://doi.org/10.7176/PPAR/9-2-03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Mascara, A. (2025). E-government service delivery (Lanao del Sur). http://dx.doi.org/10.4108/eai.30-10-2024.2354817 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Mendoza, R. U., & Cruz, J. P. (2020). Governing the 'golden age of infrastructure': Assessing transparency innovations in Philippine infrastructure development. Asian Politics & Policy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12527 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Michener, G., Coelho, J., & Moreira, D. (2021). Are governments complying with transparency? Findings from 15 years of evaluation. Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), Article 101565. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. 1016/j.giq.2021.101565 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Moreno, F., & Sulasula, J., (2023). The governance of state universities and colleges. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4513423 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Mursalin, M., & Khaeriyah, K., (2025). Accountability and transparency in regional budget management for good governance. Int. J. Econ. Commerce Manage.2, 140–148. doi: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. 62951/ijecm.v2i4.991 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Nur 'Azah, & Ab Rahman, (2025). Strengthening health system governance for achieving coverage: A comparative study of policy reforms in Southeast Asia. International Journal of Health Systems and Policy, 1(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.71305/ijhsp.v1i1.342 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Office of the President of the Philippines. (2018, October 10). Memorandum Circular No. 49: Creating an Inter-Agency Freedom of Information Exceptions Policy Committee. Republic of the Philippines. https://lawphil.net/executive/mc/mc2018/mc_49_2018.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Office of the President of the Philippines. (2020, October 23). Administrative Order No. 34: Directing strict compliance by all agencies and instrumentalities of the Executive Department with transparency, accountability and good governance policies and measures in the procurement process. Republic of the Philippines. https://lawphil.net/executive/ao/ao2020/ao_34_2020.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Ojiako, C., & Ngwaba, U., (2022). Mapping FOIRs for COVID-19 vaccine supply contracts. The Transnational Human Rights Review 9. (2022) : 93-131. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-4631.1102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Opulencia-Calub, S., et al. (2017). Tools, platforms and mechanisms to support accountability to disaster-affected populations in the Philippines. Making All Voices Count Research Report, IDS: Brighton. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/13212 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Orencia, A. J. B. (2025). Procurement ethics and accountability: A Comparative Analysis of Government and Private Sector Practices in the Philippines. 2025, Vol. 6, No. 10, 4878 – 4882. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. http://dx.doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.06.10.01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Otero, M., et al. (2025). Reviewing transparency and accountability mechanisms for Sibonga Community College. Psychology and Education A Multidisciplinary Journal 41(10):1094-1105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. DOI:10.70838/pemj.411001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Padua, A., Gumasing, R. (2025). Social Amelioration Program (SAP) in Focus: Understanding Public Perceptions and Communication Channels During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 9(3), 200-213. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20250903.18 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Perez, P. J., & Henninger, M. (2022). The right to information: An investigation into the legal framework and implementation in the Philippines. Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.750 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Porpayas, A., & Sumampong, A. J. (2024). EBUDGET System and ENGAS: lived experiences of finance services personnel in DPWH Surigao del Norte Province, Philippines. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i03.23157 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Presidential Communications Operations Office. (2016, September 19). Memorandum: Freedom of Information (FOI) manual. Republic of the Philippines. https://www.foi.gov.ph/resources/policies/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Presidential Communications Operations Office. (2018). Freedom of Information program criteria and validation process for the eligibility to FY 2018 performance-based bonus (FOIMC No. 02, s. 2018). Republic of the Philippines. https://www.foi.gov.ph/resources/policies/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Ramadhan, R. F., & Edeh, F. O. (2024). Citizen participation and digital governance in public sector accountability. Sinergi International Journal of Accounting & Taxation, 2(4), 200-210. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. https://doi.org/10.61194/ijat.v2i4.715 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Sari, I. N., Mulya, L., & Darajat, I. R. (2025). Information governance and transparency information: Two sides of the same coin? Lentera Pustaka: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Perpustakaan, Informasi dan Kearsipan, 11(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.14710/lenpust.v1i11.69304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Sarifudin, R., & Damanik, F. H. S. (2024). Enhancing transparency and accountability in public administration through information technology utilization. Gema Wiralodra, 15(1), 32-40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. https://doi.org/10.31943/gw.v15i1.661 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Saxena, S. (2018). Drivers and barriers to re-use open government data (OGD): A case study of open data initiative in Philippines. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-08-2017-0045 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 13-28). Lynne Rienner. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3452912 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Setyarto, D., et al. (2025). The role of e-government in increasing transparency and accountability in public administration. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4908 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Sharmin, S., & Chowdhury R, A., (2025). Digital transformation in governance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. https://doi.org/10.32996/jcsts.2025.7.1.27 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Solechan, Sonhaji, & Wibawa, (2024). Enhancing information transparency for effective governance: Government procurement in Indonesia. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 16.2, 873–886. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. https://doi.org/10.62271/pjc.16.2.873.886 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Soylu, A., Corcho, O., Elvesaeter, B., Badenes-Olmedo, C., Yedro-Martinez, F., Kovacic, M., Posinkovic, M., Medvescek, M., Makgill, I., Taggart, C., & Simperl, E. (2022). Data quality barriers for transparency in public procurement. Information, 13(2), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13020099 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Taufiq, M., Hidayat, R., & Sauki, M., (2023). Peering through the digital window. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. https://doi.org/10.47650/jglp.v5i2.997 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Teng-Calleja, M., Hechanova, M. R. M., Alampay, R. B. A., Canoy, N. A., Franco, E. P., & Alampay, E. A. (2017). Transformation in Philippine local government. Local Government Studies, 43(1), 64-88. https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/flgsxx/v43y2017i1p64-88.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Torneo, A., & Mojica, B., (2020). The Strategic Performance Management System in Selected Philippine National Government Agencies: Assessment and Policy Recommendations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Vemula, B. R. S. (2025). Enabling public accountability through ERP: Designing transparent procurement systems for local governments. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 10(59s). 10.52783/jisem.v10i59s.12838 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Vian, T. (2020). Anti-corruption, transparency and accountability in health: Concepts, frameworks, and approaches. Global Health Action, 13(sup1), 1694744. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1694744 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. Villanueva, P. A., (2018). Institutional change, corruption and e-government transformation in the Philippines. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 39(3):463-471. 10.1016/j.kjss.2018.07.015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Worthy, B., & Waugh, M. (2024). More open, more democratic or better at hiding? Two decades of local government transparency in the UK. Local Government Studies, 50(6), 1062-1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2024.2417222. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. Wu, A., Yan, Y., & Vyas, L., (2020). Public sector innovation, e-government, and anticorruption in China and India. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12439 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. Zafarullah, H., & Siddiquee, N. A. (2021). Open government and the right to information: Implications for transparency and accountability in Asia. Public Administration and Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1944 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]