LET’S REQUIRE THE USE OF MOBILE PHONES BY ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

 LET’S REQUIRE THE USE OF MOBILE PHONES BY ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

If the government truly wants to bring services closer to the people, the simplest solution is staring us in the face: make every agency reachable through official mobile numbers and SMS channels. In plain language, citizens should be able to text their government the same way they text their relatives and friends.

For decades, most government directories have listed only landline numbers—often outdated, sometimes without direct extensions. That system belongs to another era. Today, mobile phones are the primary communication tool of Filipinos. In fact, the Philippines already has mobile connections equivalent to more than the total population, reflecting the widespread reliance on mobile devices. Even more telling, at least 90% of households can access smartphones, although affordability gaps still exist in some areas. 

These numbers show a simple truth: government communication systems should be built around mobile phones, not landlines.

Imagine a “Mobile-First Governance” policy where every department, office, and LGU is required to publish official mobile numbers—preferably government-issued phones whose messages are archived for transparency and accountability. Citizens could send complaints, inquiries, or requests via SMS or messaging platforms without the need to travel, queue, or spend extra money on calls. With the widespread availability of unlimited call and text packages, communication could become practically free for both sides.

This idea is not theoretical. Many countries are already implementing mobile-centric governance. Estonia uses mobile digital identity systems for nearly all public transactions, while Singapore’s Singpass mobile platform handles the majority of government digital services through an app-based system. These countries prove that when mobile systems become the backbone of governance, service delivery becomes faster, cheaper, and more transparent.

Beyond convenience, a mobile-mandatory policy could significantly improve accountability. Officials who are reachable through official mobile channels are easier to monitor and easier to evaluate. Response time becomes measurable. Service quality becomes trackable. Citizens can immediately report problems—from broken infrastructure to delayed services—without bureaucratic barriers.

Of course, there are legitimate concerns. Some people, particularly the elderly or those in remote communities, may still struggle with digital tools. That is why the policy should be “mobile-primary,” not “mobile-only.” Physical offices must remain available, but anything that can be done through a phone should be accessible through a phone. Government-issued devices, cybersecurity safeguards, and centralized message archiving systems must also be part of the implementation to protect privacy and public records.

Still, the direction is clear. The future of governance is not merely digital—it is mobile. Filipinos are among the world’s heaviest users of messaging platforms and SMS, with a large majority regularly using text communication in daily life. The government should therefore meet citizens where they already are: on their phones.

Years ago, the vision behind complaint hotlines such as Project 8888 was precisely this—to make the government only one message away. That vision remains unfinished. Perhaps the time has come to complete it by institutionalizing a nationwide policy requiring all agencies and LGUs to maintain official, publicly listed mobile numbers and text-accessible service desks.

After all, if businesses can be reached instantly by phone, why shouldn’t the government be just one text away?

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/03-23-2027

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES?

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES? When we talk about the crime rate in the Philippines, we often assume that the figures we see are accurate reflections of reality. But have we ever paused to ask—how exactly is the crime rate computed? Where does this data come from, and how reliable is it? The computation of the crime rate in the Philippines is officially handled by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The formula itself is straightforward: Crime Rate = (Total Reported Crimes / Total Population) x 100,000 This simple equation gives us the number of crimes per 100,000 people, allowing for fair comparison across regions and time periods. However, the reality behind these numbers is more complex than it appears. Data from the Ground The foundation of our national crime rate is empirical data collected at the grassroots level—from individual police stations scattered across the country. Every reported crime is logged in local police blotters, forming the buil...
Read more

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS Dear Mr. President: May I ask who is going to be the arbiter or referee whenever there are overlaps in functions between two or more government agencies? I imagine that there would be no problem if these agencies would just cooperate and collaborate with each other, but what if they are unable to settle their differences and they would just end up throwing blame at each other or finger pointing at each other? Allow me to cite some examples. Who is supposed to take the lead in waste to energy projects? Is it supposed to be the DENR that is supposed to handle waste? Or is it supposed to be the DOE that is supposed to handle energy generation? Or is it supposed to be the DILG since it is the one that could direct or influence the waste to energy projects of LGUs? Who is supposed to take the lead in producing and promoting the use of biofuels? Is it supposed to be the DA, since the production of biofuels is supposed to be all about planting biofuel ...
Read more

BATTLING A MENTAL HEALTH EPIDEMIC

BATTLING A MENTAL HEALTH EPIDEMIC It is already a well-established fact that the Covid-19 pandemic also triggered what could be called a mental health pandemic. It does not mean however that since the Covid-19 pandemic has practically slowed down, that the mental health pandemic has also slowed down. For the record, no one has officially declared the mental health problem is already a pandemic, but I suggest that we already make that declaration, so that we could respond to the problem with the attention that it needs. As far as I know, no one has declared that the Covid-19 pandemic is officially over, with most governments merely saying that it is now reduced to being a manageable epidemic, whatever that means. What is clear however, is that no one has also declared that the mental health pandemic is also over, in fact many governments would even hesitate to call it an epidemic. The fact remains however that globally, 1 out of 8 are affected according to the WHO, and locally, at least...
Read more