Transparency reforms are widely used to address corruption, yet disclosure may have limited accountability value when information cannot be accessed, understood, used, or connected to institutional response and enforceable consequences. This systematic literature review examined the institutional conditions shaping the relationship between transparency mechanisms and anti-corruption accountability in the Philippine public sector. Following PRISMA 2020 reporting procedures, the review synthesized 46 publications issued from 2010 to 2026 across public procurement, fiscal disclosure, open government, local administration, digital governance, public health, citizen participation, regulatory governance, and public-sector reform. Qualitative thematic synthesis identified seven interrelated themes: disclosure and access to government information; transparency as an enabling mechanism for accountability; institutional capacity; political discretion, compliance weaknesses, and enforcement constraints; citizen and civil-society monitoring; digital governance; and the gap between formal reform and implementation. Across the included evidence, transparency mechanisms appeared most likely to support accountability when information was timely, reliable, understandable, and usable; when citizens or oversight actors could act on that information; and when public institutions had the capacity, independence, and authority to respond, investigate, correct, or impose consequences. The synthesis therefore indicates that transparency is not equivalent to accountability. Its anti-corruption value is conditioned by the institutional processes that connect disclosure to use, response, oversight, and enforcement.