The Flame Homepage

regards to public information. The Freedom of Information (FOI) bill, a bill that strengthens the citizens’ right to know public matters and also gives them access to official public records, provides a definite procedure with regard to information access. It requires anyone who wants to access public information to send a letter of request or use any electronic means. The government agency is then required to comply with the request within seven calendar days.

The FOI bill requires the government to publish information without the need of request from anyone. It also mandates public disclosure of government transactions, decisions, and official acts. The information should be published in the departments’ website after fifteen days.

The bill will allow individuals to reproduce, copy, and scrutinize pieces of information, provided the petitioner follows certain procedures.

However, the bill imposes certain exceptions. The 14th Congress’ bill restricts the access to information that will incite a war, invasion or any external threat; weaken bilateral or multilateral negotiations especially diplomatic relations of the Philippines with other countries; deter the country’s defense department to detect or suppress any form of illegal works; and result in the invasion of privacy of an individual, unless the information relates to a public function of an individual. The drafts of decisions by any branch of the government in the exercise of their adjudicatory functions are also exempted in the provisions stipulated in
the bill.

Ignored plea

The demand for the FOI bill started in the 11th Congress but failed to materialize. It was only until the 14th Congress that both the House of Representatives and the Senate reconciled and consolidated each other’s FOIs.

However, the 14th Congress also failed to pass the bill into law in its last session in June 2010.

“The way I look at it, it was not one of their urgent measures that is why there was no necessity for them to act during the last days of Congress,” Faculty of Civil Law professor Atty. Rene Gorospe said, adding that if government officials did numerous suspicious activities, they would not want them to be disclosed to the public.

Former Dean of the University of the Philippines-Diliman College of Mass Communication Prof. Luis Teodoro told the Flame that President Aquino supported the bill during his campaign in the 2010 presidential elections, but “when he won, he apparently had hesitations. Last year, he did not include it in his priorities.”

Gorospe lamented that even after a year of change in the administration, there is still no advancement as to the bill’s passage in Congress. “Perhaps they might not be comfortable to some provisions of the bill. They might not be ready to disclose so much that might be subject to public disclosure.”

Need for an FOI

Teodoro said that Asian countries like Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, have an FOI law except the Philippines.

“Together with the CMFR (Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility), we have been part of the coalition that pushes for FOI for 14 years [now],” Teodoro said.

Teodoro emphasized that the purpose of the bill is to create an “informed citizenry” that can question the erroneous works of the government and alleviate corruption.

“For the sake of argument, Aquino’s administration is better. But the administration will end in 2016—a new government will take over, it may be liberal or restrictive. That is why there is a need for a law. It should not be subject to the winds of what the [current] president wants,” he said.

Network Coordinator of the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability Redempto Parafina said that a law is different from just having good leaders.

“I think the FOI law is still needed even if President Aquino is known to be aggressively pushing for transparency and accountability in his government. The force of law is different as it institutionalizes things. It is beyond leaders and persons,” Parafina said.

“When President Aquino ends his term, the law remains. That is a good legacy. A Philippines with FOI law is more modern and confident of its governance than one that has none,” he said.

Malacañang-drafted FOI

The Palace released its own version of the bill last May 3 and presented the amended bill last July 27.

Provisions added in the Palace-drafted bill expanded the exemptions that the previous FOI bills proposed. It seeks to disapprove repeated requests from the same person who asks for an official document. Moreover, undersecretary Manuel Quezon III said during the unveiling of the palacedrafted bill that it provides for the confidentiality of “communication documents and other materials that are part of the deliberation process.”

Teodoro further scrutinized the bills being pushed through the Congress and the recently refurbished bill drafted by Malacañang.

“The new bill, instead of narrowing down the ‘national defense’ exception, they widened it up to ‘national security.’ Those two are different cases. For example, when you talk of SALN (Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net worth) they can tell you that it is part of ‘national security’,” he said.

He added that if the government would insist on creating a bill that would narrow down the access to information, they would rather push for a collaboration of laws to hype up the right to information.

“If the government will insist of creating a restrictive rather than expanding Act, let us not push for it. Let us just propagate the constitution. We can create an index of laws to access public information,” Teodoro said.

He added that they are fighting for a bill that would provide easier access to information and not something that would restrict the people from their own rights.

“The international standard is to maximize, not restrict. The restrictions are seemingly authoritarian. Are we a dictatorship?” Teodoro asked.

Furthermore, the Malacañang FOI would construct a body that will be referred to as the Information Commission. The said commission will regulate the release of government documents and would have the power to cite, directly and indirectly any citizen for defiance to the act.

Teodoro noted that the CMFR and other organizations have many objections with the Palace-drafted bill, adding that Malacañang added many exceptions like banning a document either temporarily or permanently.

Adding to this, Faculty of Arts and Letters professor Atty. Bong Lopez noted that the creation of the Information Commission is tantamount to imposing regulations.

“It is a prior restraint that can create a chilling effect,” Lopez said.

On the other hand, Parafina noted that the establishment of the commission can also bear good effects.

“It is okay to have an Information Commission for as long as its framework is one of facilitating public access, not controlling it. The difference between facilitating and controlling will determine the overall effectiveness of the commission as an institution,” Parafina said.

He added that there are inevitable instances wherein the government will choose not to disclose information to the public brought by factors that deal with national concerns.

“It is a paradigm shift because the citizens need not beg for the information. It is the government that needs to justify its decision when it does not want to release certain information,” Parafina said. “It therefore encourages a culture of openness as public interest outweighs the exceptions.”

Gorospe echoed Parafina’s statement and said that it is just normal for the government to keep certain documents.

“I think this is one way by which the government would have some control on the records that are confidential because obviously you cannot release everything about [it]—there are some confidential matters,” he said.

Legal Remedies

The bill also provides legal remedies in case of denial of information and non-compliance with the bill’s provision. Anyone can file a criminal or administrative case and a penalty of one to six months imprisonment may be imposed to offenders.

Parafina said everyone should learn from the experiences of countries with an FOI Act, saying that the problem in having FOI “is the further bureaucratization of getting information” and the challenge of implementing the commission “both in national and provincial levels.”

“Because we are new to it, there are many aspects that may be abused. We better study carefully all scenarios and anticipate different possibilities to avoid the bastardization of the intent of the law,” he said. “The experiences of both developed and developing countries in using this law would be good to review and learn from.” F