A democracy cannot function behind closed doors

Democracy depends on an informed public. Citizens can only hold leaders accountable when they have access to accurate information and the ability to distinguish fact from political narrative. In the Philippines, however, that democratic ideal faces a new challenge. As one of the most online countries in the world, Filipinos increasingly experience politics through social media feeds rather than through primary sources. While this unprecedented connectivity has made information more accessible than ever, it has also created an environment where misinformation spreads just as quickly as the truth. In the digital age, safeguarding democracy requires more than protecting freedom of expression—it requires making reliable information impossible to ignore.

A functioning democracy depends not only on the right to vote but also on the ability of citizens to make informed judgments. Public opinion carries little meaning if it is built on distorted or incomplete information. Yet many Filipinos encounter public affairs not through official records or firsthand proceedings but through algorithm-driven feeds, viral clips, and partisan commentary. More often than not, people consume interpretations of events rather than the events themselves. When primary sources become inaccessible while curated narratives dominate online spaces, misinformation does not simply spread; it flourishes.

Democratic institutions cannot prevent every misleading post from circulating on social media, nor should they attempt to police public discourse. What they can do is ensure that accurate, complete, and verifiable information is just as accessible as the narratives competing for public attention. Transparency is not merely a principle of democracy; in the digital age, it is one of the strongest safeguards against misinformation. Citizens should not have to depend solely on journalists, politicians, or influencers to tell them what happened when they can be given the opportunity to see it for themselves.

Take, for example, Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial. Whether one supports or opposes the impeachment is beside the point. The legitimacy of any constitutional process depends not only on whether justice is done, but also on whether the public can see that it is done. In an age when political discourse is increasingly mediated by algorithms and partisan commentary, democratic institutions cannot afford to treat transparency as an afterthought.

Freely livestreaming the proceedings on accessible platforms such as YouTube would not simply make the trial easier to watch; it would preserve the public’s access to a primary source. Every viral clip, political reaction, or media analysis would exist alongside the complete record, allowing citizens to compare interpretation with evidence. This does not eliminate bias or misinformation, nor does it guarantee that people will arrive at the same conclusions. Rather, it ensures that disagreements are rooted in a shared factual record instead of competing versions of reality. If democratic institutions fail to make authoritative information readily accessible, they leave a vacuum that speculation, selective editing, and misinformation will inevitably fill.

Some argue that livestreaming the trial would transform it into political theater. But high-profile impeachment proceedings are political by nature, whether cameras are present or not. The more important question is whether the public watches the original proceedings or only the selectively edited highlights that spread across social media. Transparency does not eliminate bias or political spin, but it does something equally important: it gives every Filipino the opportunity to verify claims against the original source. A democracy cannot ask its citizens to think critically while denying them access to the evidence on which those judgments should be based.

The challenge facing Philippine democracy is not simply the spread of misinformation but the erosion of shared facts. In a country where public opinion is increasingly shaped online, democratic institutions cannot afford to hide behind closed doors. They must compete with misinformation by making the truth just as accessible. Broadcasting the impeachment trial will not guarantee public trust, but it will ensure that every Filipino has the opportunity to judge history based on evidence rather than edited narratives. In the digital age, transparency is no longer just good governance—it is a democratic responsibility.