i
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
Bachelor of Arts in Journalism
Lois Joy G. Guinmapang
Ma. Zarina A. San Jose
The Press in a Democracy:
A Comparative Historical Analysis of the Non-Passage
of the Freedom of Information Act from 1992-2012
Thesis Adviser:
Professor Lucia P. Tangi
College of Mass Communication
University of the Philippines Diliman
Date of Submission
April 2013
Permission is given for the following people to access this thesis
Available for general public
Available only after consultation with authors/thesis adviser
Available only to those bound by confidentiality agreement
Students’ signatures:
Signature of thesis adviser:
Yes
No
No
ii
The Press in a Democracy:
A Comparative Historical Analysis of the Non Passage
of the Freedom of Information Act from 1992-2012
by
Lois Joy G. Guinmapang
Ma. Zarina A. San Jose
has been accepted for
the degree of BACHELOR of ARTS in JOURNALISM
by
Professor Lucia P. Tangi
and approved for the
University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication
by
Dr. Rolando B. Tolentino
Dean, College of Mass Communication
iii
UNIVERSITY PERMISSION PAGE
We hereby grant the University of the Philippines non-exclusive worldwide, royalty-free
license to reproduce, publish and publicly distribute copies of this thesis or dissertation in
whatever form subject to the provisions of the UP IPR policy and any contractual
obligations, as well as more specific permission marking on the Title Page.
Specifically we grant the following rights to the University:
a) To upload a copy of the work in the theses database of the College of Mass
Communication Journalism department and in any other databases available on the public
internet;
b) To publish the work in the College of Mass Communication journal, both in print and
electronic or digital format and online; and
c) To give open access to above-mentioned work, thus allowing “fair use” of the work in
accordance with the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines
(Republic Act No. 8293), especially for teaching, scholarly, and research purposes.
Lois Joy Guzman Guinmapang
Ma. Zarina Almeda San Jose
2009- 01097
2009-10528
iv
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
PERSONAL DATA
Name
Guinmapang, Lois Joy Guzman
Permanent Address
2335 A Callejon H, Cabo St., Gagalangin Tondo, Manila
Date of Birth
29 January 1993
Telephone Number
(+63) 917 550 6243
E-mail Address
lojguinmapang@gmail.com
EDUCATION
Primary Level
Philippine Women’s University - Jose Abad Santos
Memorial School – Manila (PWU-JASMS Manila)
Secondary Level
Manila Science High School (MSHS)
AFFILIATIONS
Member, Interdependent Student-Centered Activism
Member, University of the Philippines Advertising Core
Public Relations Officer, State Varsity Christian
Fellowship – Diliman
WORK EXPERIENCE
Intern, Rappler, April-June 2012
Intern, Storyline ANC, June-July 2012
ACHIEVEMENTS
College Scholar, 1st and 2nd Semesters, AY 2009-2010, 2nd
Semester AY 2011-2012, 1st Semester, AY 2012-2013
v
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
PERSONAL DATA
Name
San Jose, Ma. Zarina Almeda
Permanent Address
Lot 2C Block 12 M. Consing St. BF Resort Village Las
Pinas
Date of Birth
9 January 1992
Telephone Number
(+63) 917 807 0687
E-mail Address
zarina_sj@yahoo.com
EDUCATION
Primary Level
Second Honors, PAREF Woodrose School, Inc.
Secondary Level
Second Honors, PAREF Woodrose School, Inc.
AFFILIATIONS
Vice Chairperson for External Affairs, Union of Journalists
of the Philippines UP Diliman
Secretary General, Student Alliance for the Advancement
of Democratic Rights in UP
WORK EXPERIENCE
Intern, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility,
April-May 2012
ACHIEVEMENTS
College Scholar 1st and 2nd Semesters, AY 2009-2010,
2010-2011, 2011-2012, 1st Semester, 2012-2013
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, we would like to thank our thesis adviser, Prof. Lucia P.
Tangi, for her presence and availability. Her input and suggestions have truly helped this
study take shape, and we will always be grateful for her undying patience.
We would also like to express our infinite gratitude to our parents, Mr. Peter and
Marcia Guinmapang, and Mr. Manny and Bernie San Jose for their ceaseless support. We
would never reach this milestone if not for your selflessness and understanding. Thank
you for strengthening us with your words of love and inspiration. Thank you for prodding
us to be better.
We would also like to thank our friends, Eunice, Dik, Trina, Dawn, Princess, Jiru,
Rich, Carla, Mich and Iyay. Thank you for being there in times of stress and relaxation,
and for being one with us in tears and in laughter. You have made our college lives truly
memorable.
To our organizations, thank you for also being another part of our support system,
for being one of the first people who helped us adjust to college life and stay sane in it.
To each and every one of our interviewees, we would like to commend you for
your dedication to the passage of this bill. Thank you for accommodating us in spite of
your busy schedules, and for sharing with us your insights and experiences. Your fight is
not over. And we, too, are hopeful of its near victory.
And lastly, we would like to thank our amazing God, in whom we live and move
and have our being, and by whose grace and strength we can do all things.
vii
DEDICATION
To the citizens of this country
whose right it is to know
what goes on inside the
government
that’s supposed to serve them.
And to the freedom fighters,
our struggle continues.
viii
ABSTRACT
Guinmapang, L. J. G. and San Jose, M. Z. A. (2013). The Press in a Democracy: A
Comparative Historical Analysis of the Non-Passage of the Freedom of Information Act
from 1992-2012. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, University of the Philippines
College of Mass Communication.
This study followed the journey of the Freedom of Information Bill in Philippine
legislature since it was first filed in 1992 until its “death” in February 2013. It found out
three main things: (1) a qualitative discussion on the bills that have been filed from 19922012, (2) the “experiences” the FOI bill and its advocates have undergone, and (3) the
contributors and obstacles to the passage of the bill. The study revealed that a total of 44
bills have been filed each at the House of Representatives and the Senate from 19922012. The bill had almost been passed during the 14th congress but failed due to a lack of
quorum. As of this writing, the bill has also been considered “dead” for the 15th congress.
Based on the interviews, the study also revealed that some of the factors that affect the
passage of the bill are the President’s support and the lack of public demand for it.
However, the biggest factor contributing to its non passage is resistance from the
legislators at the House themselves, that is, passing a bill that could possibly unseat them.
In the end, however, the freedom of information remains a right and a vital part in a
democracy where the main thrust is an informed citizenry.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
i
Approval Sheet
ii
University Permission Page
iii
Biographical Data
iv
Acknowledgements
vi
Dedication
vii
Abstract
viii
Table of Contents
ix
List of Tables
xii
List of Figures
xiii
I.
II.
INTRODUCTION
1
A. Background of the Study
1
B. Statement of the Problem and Objectives
6
C. Significance of the Study
7
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
8
A. Press in a Democracy
8
B. Press Freedom, Democracy and Freedom of Information
9
C. FOI: International Law
11
D. India: A Case Study
12
E. FOI: Philippine Context
15
x
F. Access to Information in Southeast Asia
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
16
STUDY FRAMEWORK
19
A. Theoretical Level
19
B. Conceptual Level
22
C. Operational Level
24
D. Operational Definition of Terms
27
METHODOLOGY
28
A. Research Design and Methods
28
B. Concepts and Indicators
29
C. Data Gathering
29
D. Data Analysis
32
E.
Research Instrument
32
F.
Scope and Limitations
33
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
35
A. History of the FOI
50
B. Contributors and Obstacles to the Passage of the FOI
60
C. Comparison of Recent Bills
66
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
85
A. Summary
85
xi
B. Recommendations
87
BIBLIOGRAPHY
90
APPENDICES
93
A. House Bill 3732
B. House Bill 6766
C. Senate Bill 3208
D. House Bill 53
E. Interview Transcript Representative Lorenzo Tanada III
F. Interview Transcript Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan
G. Interview Transcript Senator Antonio Trillanes III
H. Interview Transcript Red Batario
I. Interview Transcript Ed Lingao
J. Interview Transcript Vincent Lazatin
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Number
Title
Page
1
Matrix of Bills from 1992-1995
35
2
Matrix of Bills from 1995-1998
36
3
Matrix of Bills from 1998-2001
37
4
Matrix of Bills from 2001-2004
38
5
Matrix of Bills from 2004-2007
40
6
Matrix of Bills from 2007-2010
43
7
Matrix of Bills from 2010-2012
45
8
Comparison of consolidated bills
67
9
Comparison of Tanada bill and Malacanang Version
82
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
Title
Page
1
Allocution Theory Model
20
2
Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication
22
3
Conceptual application Allocution Theory
23
4
Conceptual application of Shanon and Weaver model
24
5
Framework operational model
26
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Tension arose at the House of Representatives in its last few days of session
before taking a recess for the May 2013 election campaign period. Many legislators, civil
society groups, media organizations and other individuals anticipated the tackling of a
bill that has been awaiting legislation for a little over three decades. But with seeming
disregard from President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III and most legislators, and despite
numerous campaigns pushing for its passage, the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill is
back to square one.
A. Background of the Study
1. Importance and Need for an FOI Bill
In recent years, the Philippines has been hailed among the most corrupt countries
in the Asia; gaining top ranking with a score of 9.4 out of 10 (0 being the least corrupt
and 10 the most) in a 2007 survey among foreign investors conducted by the Political &
Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC). In 2011, the country’s rate dipped to an 8.9, poorer
that 2010’s score of 8.25. While there has been a drastic change in the figures from 2007,
it is safe to say that the country still suffers from widespread fraudulence.
President Aquino’s 2010 presidential campaign banked on the slogan “Kung
walang corrupt, walang mahirap” and has promised to push for transparency and
government accountability as a means to end corruption. But after three years, the
president’s promise to support the passage of the FOI bill has failed to be concretized into
actions.
2
Freedom of information is a key component of a true democracy and is
guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution under the Bill of Rights, Article III Section 7
which states:
Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
This right to information is also recognized in international law. Article 19 of the
Universal of Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), adopted in 1948, acknowledges
that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.
Meanwhile, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
signed by over 150 countries including the Philippines, also included provisions similar
to the UNDHR. According to Article 19 of ICCPR:
3
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of opinion.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of
all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in
the form of art or through any other media of his choice.
Freedom of information is a vital component in the workings of a free press which
in turn is a necessary condition for an informed citizenry. Citizens can only exercise their
rights fully or participate in decision making processes if they have access to reliable
information. This is so democracy can be more enhanced by people who engage with
their government institutions and voice out opinions based on facts and evidence. In a
democratic state, freedom of information allows citizens to remain in control of the
functions of the government composed of officials whom they themselves elected into
office.
“They would get to know what’s happening inside the bureaucracy,” said Senator
Antonio Trillanes IV, one of the authors of the consolidated FOI bill in the Senate.
“Being voters, they have that right to demand certain information and make the seating
administration more responsible and accountable for their actions (A. Trillanes, personal
communication, January 21, 2013).”
Quezon province fourth district representative Lorenzo Tanada III, one of the
“FOI champions” in the 15th congress, added that, “as part of good governance [citizens]
help the government perform its duty by getting the information [they] need. [They] are
4
able to monitor if the government is using their resources correctly or not (L. Tanada,
personal communication, December 10, 2012).”
As there is no current law providing mechanics for the compulsory duty of offices
to disclose transactions of public demand, having a bill that would guarantee this freedom
of information becomes a necessity in order to address concerns such as the lack of a
definite and speedy procedure as well as a definite scope for the access to information
and the penalties for violating such.
In a manifesto, the Bantay FOI! Sulong FOI! Network said there is a need for a
Freedom of Information law “to institutionalize transparency as the mandatory norm,
rather than a discretionary matter, for all elective and appointive officials, across all
branches of government.”
Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan, convenor of Right to Know, Right Now
Movement told Transparencyreporting.net that “passage of the bill will give the current
government credibility and (moral) high ground in its anti-corruption drive,” adding that
“in contrast, failure to pass the bill exposes its anti-corruption stance as mere rhetoric; it
betrays the trust that the people gave it in the last elections.”
It is claimed that Representative Oscar Orbos filed the first Freedom of
Information Act in 1992. Two decades have passed with more than twenty bills filed in
Congress not being granted approval. The bill moved farthest during the 14th Congress
when it was approved by the bicameral conference committee, ratified by Senate but
killed in the House of Representatives.
5
According to Toby Macintosh of Freedominfo.org, the number of countries that
have laws on FOI vary depending on the definition and stages on enactment. All things
considered, Macintosh says the safest generalization would be around 90 countries.
2. Sweden and the first FOI Law
Sweden passed the first Freedom of Information Law called the Freedom of the
Press Act in 1766 and introduced the principle of open government or
Offtenlighetsgrundsatsen (Larsen and Walby, 2012).
According to the Act, everyone is entitled to gain access to “official documents”
which may be in any form like text, video, soundclip, etc. However not all documents of
public authority are considered “official.” There are “secret documents” specified by law.
The Act states the following allowable restriction of information regarding:
“1. the security of the Realm or its relations with another state or an
international organisation;
2. the central fiscal, monetary or currency policy of the Realm;
3. the inspection, control or other supervisory activities of a public
authority;
4. the interest of preventing or prosecuting crime;
5. the economic interest of the public institutions;
6. the protection of the personal or economic circumstances of private
subjects;
7. the preservation of animal or plant species.”
(Sweden Ministry of Justice, 2009)
6
But a more comprehensive list of exempted documents was made in the
country’s 1980 Secrecy Act (Basinar, 2006). It was further updated to the Publicity and
Secrecy Act of 2009 which details what kind of information government agencies can
keep secret, what type of document, under what circumstances and towards whom
(University College London, n.d.).
Manninem (2006) said the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act is conceived as the
“prerequisite” of the freedom of expression. The Act has gone through several
developments from its formulation and implementation and has now been conceived as
the “cornerstone” for the worldwide struggle for the freedom of information. Manninem
adds that the freedom of information is also seen as the prerequisite of freedom of
expression and that it will only be a “matter of time” because it will be acknowledged as
an “integral part” of human rights.
B. Statement of the Problem
What has the freedom of information bill undergone since it was first filed in 1992?
C. Objectives
1. To trace the history of the FOI bill since it was first introduced in 1992;
2. To find out the various experiences that the FOI bill went through under
various administrations; and
3. To identify what factors have led to the non passage of the bill.
7
D. Significance of the Study
Being enshrined into constitution, numerous groups have sought the passage of an
FOI act for public accountability and the legitimacy of democratically elected
governments. President Aquino himself mentioned during his 2010 campaign that he
would support public access to information, yet aside from the Palace version of the bill
which was drafted February this year, the public has yet to hear about further legislative
measures which concern it.
By doing a historical analysis, the researchers intend to provide more depth to
previous knowledge on the FOI through a careful and detailed comparison of the
different versions filed from 1992-2012, from its proponents to its sanctions. The study
is set on identifying how and why the bills have been hindered from being enacted by
means of analyzing the events and legislative processes the different versions of the bill
have gone through in the course of history.
8
II.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In all societies applying any type of political or economic system, the press has
always been seen as a means of providing information to the citizens. Whether it is used
for propaganda to advance certain political ideas or as a tool to check on the government,
the main goal of the press is to be a catalyst of information.
A. Press in a democracy
The democratic framework which allows the citizenry to question and check
government leadership has made the press assume the role of a watchdog over the
exercise of power. In order to advance public interests, the press must take that
adversarial position towards the government, viewing the people in them as “enemies”
who must be watched “with distrust” (De Jesus, 1996, p. 27). The press must become the
“sentinel of the people’s rights and freedom,” making sure that the government does not
misuse or overstep its powers (Feliciano, 1968, p. 173).
Serving as a watchdog helps towards the improvement of government
Media serves as a cornerstone for an effective democracy because it presents
relevant information to the public and becomes a medium for different opinions. The
purpose of the press is to provide news and information that will help the citizens engage
ideas with one another, and express their preferences and problems to the people who
govern them (De Jesus, 2008, p. 9).
9
Another of the enduring clichés to describe the press is that it is the “Fourth
Estate,” to serve as a monitor of government, a function that is supposedly derived from
its role as a watchdog.
In the classical, British, sense, this referred to the press watching over the three
other estates in Parliament (the Lords Temporal, the Lords Spiritual and the Commons).
The concept assumed that the press was free to perform its task because it was supposed
to be free from government regulation and other constraints.
Thus, the capacity of the press to perform its function as the Fourth Estate, which
in present conditions pertain to the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of
government, is premised on how free it is (Teodoro, n.d.).
And the level of freedom which the press enjoys, in turn directly affect the quality
and quantity of information it produces, which then determines how effective it actually
is for a democratic society.
B. Press freedom, democracy and freedom of information
Freedom of expression is a right guaranteed by numerous policies both
internationally and locally.
According to veteran journalist Sheila Coronel (2001), “a free press provides a
steady stream of information on corruption, the abuse of power and assorted forms of
malfeasance.” Information empowers not just the press but also the citizens because it
allows them to challenge government policy and denounce official abuse.
The value of freedom of speech and the exchange of information lies in the
creation of an environment that is rich in perspectives and ideas (Petaja, 2009, p. 32). The
10
social responsibility theory also holds that freedom of expression is an individual’s means
of perpetuating himself. It is also the source of society’s intelligence, “the seed from
which progress springs” (Petersen, 1956, p. 102).
Thus, the public has a right of access to information, a basic right to be informed
and it is the duty of the press to make this happen. But the government is also tasked not
just of allowing this right but also actively promoting it.
The Commission of Freedom of the Press (or the “Hutchins Commission”) states
that,
“If the freedom of the press is to achieve reality, government must set
limits on its capacity to interfere with, regulate or suppress the voices of
the press or to manipulate the data on which public judgment is formed.
Government must set the limits on itself, not merely because freedom of
expression is a reflection of important interests of the community, but
also because it is a moral right. It is a moral right because it has an
aspect of duty about it (Petersen, 1956, p. 102).”
The right of freedom to information is a necessary aspect of participatory
democracy. People cannot assert their rights if they don’t know what these are.
Governments cannot be held accountable if the citizens are unaware of the actions of the
people and institutions who lead them (Coronel, 2001, p. 5)
11
Venkat Iyer (2012, pp.6-16) sees a number of “desirable objectives” in recognizing
the freedom of information (FOI):
1. Helps to make the government be accountable to the people being governed
2. By facilitating the acquisition of knowledge, it encourages self fulfilment
3. Acts as a weapon in the fight against corruption and base of power by state
functionaries
4. Contributes to improving the quality of official decision making
5. Enhances the participatory nature of democracy
6. Goes some way in redressing the inherent balance in power between the citizen
and the state
7. Strengthens the hand of the individual in his dealings with government
Thus, the main beneficiaries of having an FOI law is always the public because it is
able to enhance their capacity to monitor wrongdoing and eventually enhance the
transparency in governance to which the state is supposedly committed (Teodoro, n.d.).
C. FOI: International Law
The first FOI was passed by the Swedish parliament dubbed “His Majesty’s
Gracious Ordinance Relating to Freedom of Writing and of the Press” of 1766.
Fast forward to 1945, closely after the World War II, the United Nations was
formed to replace the defunct League of Nations. This new organization aimed to
promote and maintain healthy international relations and to uphold the people’s rights.
12
On December 10, 1948, Article 19 of the United Declaration of Human Rights validated
that freedom of information is a fundamental human right.
Affirmed by this assertion, a global revolution on the number of laws upholding
the right to information began to gain ground. This, according to FOI advocate Tony
Mendel, is not only the effect of international policy, but also an offshoot from the
skyrocketing advances of information technology which “changed the whole way
societies relate to and use information, and which have, broadly, made the right to
information more important to citizens (Mendel, 2008, p. 4).”
Roger Vleugels’s Overview of All FOI Laws states that as of 2011, there are 88
national FOIAs, 175 sub-national FOIAs, and 3 international FOIAs. Countries in the A1
list, or the ones that have enacted FOI, are not only first-world countries such as the
United States, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan, but also developing countries such
as India, Chile, and Jamaica. This means that the passage of a FOI is not limited to
whether or not a country is industrialized or economically capable. Newly democratic
countries such as Indonesia and Ethiopia have also adapted an FOIA. As for the
Philippines, the country is included in the overview’s B1 list, which enumerates those
that are “more or less close to an FOIA.”
D. India: A Case Study
One of the countries that has recently passed and implemented a Freedom of
Information Act is India. Local FOI author Rep. Erin Tanada rated the bill an 8/10 in
terms of effectiveness, saying the outcomes of India’s legislation have been significant in
the country’s move toward transparency.
13
Before the bill was even passed, electoral candidates in India were already
required “to submit affidavits containing their financial and criminal antecedents while
filing nominations” (Daruwala and Nayak, 2007) as the Elections Commission publishes
the information on its website.
In 2002, India’s Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission of India
collect these affidavits and publicize them. This ruling was in response to a public
interest litigation case filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms on the same year.
Political parties rallied together and even got the Union Government to pass an ordinance
that nullified the court’s order. However in 2003, the court struck the ordinance down
stating that it violated the voter’s fundamental right to information (Daruwala and Nayak,
2007).
In 2005, India’s freedom of information bill, dubbed the Right to Information
Act (RTIA) of 2005, was put into action. According to Prof. Alasdair Roberts who
published a paper on the RTIA’s first four years of performance, citizens have been
enthusiastic about the law, actively making use of it as evidenced by two million requests
filed in its first two and a half years.
“Most of those requests are directed to offices of state and local
government. Many requests are intended to prod officials to deliver
promised services and benefits—such as rationed food, backpay and
pensions, roads and other public works, or teachers for primary schools.
Local action groups are learning how to integrate the law into their
campaigns against corruption. In one extraordinary case, non-
14
governmental groups in Orissa used the RTIA to show that official and
businessmen had stolen four million kilograms of rice intended for
distribution to the poor (Roberts, 2010).”
India’s RTIA is a decentralized law, being implemented in more than thirty five
state and territorial governments within the country. Much is still to be improved on as
implementation is uneven, varying per state, yet, this unevenness presents opportunities
for these bodies to innovate (Roberts, 2010). One innovation is the Jaankari call center,
which was undertaken by the state government of Bihar in partnership with a nongovernmental organization, Parivartan. This call center allows individuals to make RTI
requests through a single toll-free number. Service is provided in four languages. The
application fee is charged to the caller's phone bill, and a reply is sent directly from the
PIO. (Centre for Good Governance and PriceWaterhouseCoopers as cited in Roberts,
2010).
Aside from the innovations in implementation, the RTIA can be considered more
advanced than other FOIAs in terms of provisions. According to Aruna Roy of The
Guardian, the United Kingdom should learn from RTIA, as it is has greater control in
terms of penalties for non-compliance in supplying information. If an official fails to give
or delays information, a fine of 250 rupees would be collected per day.
The RTIA also has more ground in getting information from private companies. It
recognizes that transactions and deals are not carried out by government alone, but with
the assistance and funding of private entities and non-governmental bodies. In effect,
“the RTIA extends to non-governmental organizations that are ‘substantially financed,
15
directly or indirectly’ by government... No other FOIA-style law has a similar rule”
(Roberts, 2010).
E. FOI: Philippine Context
Now, the pressing need for an FOIA in the Philippines is making headway into
mainstream consciousness as a greater chunk of the population clamours for a clean,
transparent, and accountable government. In May 2012, the most powerful man in the
judiciary, former Chief Justice Renato Corona, was impeached due to inaccuracies in his
filed Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). On May 29, 2012, he was
convicted by a 20-3 vote in the Senate.
Ateneo School of Government Dean Tony La Viña writes that the most critical
lesson from the impeachment and conviction of Renato Corona is that the Philippines
needs to pass a Freedom of Information Act as soon as possible.
“The fruits of the impeachment process will be best preserved if the
Filipino people can help create a culture of accountability and trust
between the leader and the led. FOI is a powerful tool to achieve that, to
pre-empt corruption by improving deterrence and enhancing citizen
participation in governance.
The approach also cultivates the healthy leader-led relationship so
essential to public support and trust in government. With the
impeachment of Renato Corona, we have shown the viability of
16
accountability from above. We, the Filipino people, must now complete
the picture, and provide accountability from below. From penalizing
officials, we must now help them make Philippine governance and
accountability work (La Viña, 2012).”
In actuality, findings from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
(PCIJ) state that when asked for the most basic documents such as records on health,
education, public safety, business, SALNs, and civil registry and property, Local
Government Units (LGUs) of the National Capital Region are slow to address requests,
having a tendency to neglect deadlines determined by regulation. The PCIJ noticed that
the referral system in between offices unnecessarily hinders the process of attaining
information.
According to the PCIJ, “the apparent inability of majority of Metro Manila local
governments to respond quickly and fully to citizen requests for asset disclosure records
of local officials, as well as documents on education, health, public safety and other
essential services may well be a reflection of the Aquino administration’s own dithering
over an FOI.”
F. Access to Information in Southeast Asia
Back in 2001, the PCIJ published its study in a book entitled “The Right to
Know: Access to Information in Southeast Asia.” The study examined the state of media
and information access in eight countries in Southeast Asia (SEA) through a cross
country survey that ranked the countries according to their “openness” in releasing
17
information to the public. The study found out that Philippines and Thailand were the
most transparent countries at the time while Burma and Vietnam were the least
transparent.
The Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia were classified as “democracies”
wherein information and communications technology have helped in ousting “unpopular”
(that is, dictatorial) regimes. Along with the fall of dictatorships came the
“institutionalization of democracy” through new constitutions that guaranteed a wide
range of freedoms, including those of information and expression. Further, the study
claimed that the main concern of journalists and citizens in the Philippines and in
Thailand are “refining procedures for information access.”
Meanwhile, Cambodia, Malaysia and Singapore were described as “semi
democracies” because their governments imposed laws containing harsh penalties on
publication or airing of anything “that may be construed as inciting to hatred, disaffection
or violence against the government.”
Burma and Vietnam were considered the least transparent among the eight SEA
countries in the study. The PCIJ said the lack of information access is rooted in a
“general lack of freedom in society,” where Vietnam was a socialist state and Burma was
under military rule.
The PCIJ concluded that the “struggle for freedom of information cannot be
taken separately from the struggle for democracy.” The most significant “openings” in
information access were a result of the citizens’ involvement in asserting democratic
movements.
18
Further, PCIJ noted that liberal information access “is not the panacea for social
ills.” Access to information does not always guarantee the promotion of democracy and
the advancement of social equity. There is a need to involve all sectors to use it properly.
Information serves as a catalyst that makes change possible.
Most literature related to the FOI discussed its importance to the workings of a
free press and a democracy. The review of related literature showed the principles in
which the freedom of information is built and how it should be used. The researchers
found no study tackling a detailed history of why the FOI bill has not been passed in the
Philippines. The researchers hope to contribute to the passage of the FOI bill by giving
knowledge on its legislative history from where the legislators and other stakeholders
may learn.
19
III. FRAMEWORK
A. Theoretical
The researchers agreed on certain assumptions in order to choose the appropriate
theories for the study. However, these were also mainly based from the Social
Responsibility Theory. Theodore Peterson (1956) named six functions of the press under
it:

Servicing the political system by providing information, discussion and debate on
public affairs

Enlightening the public so as to make it capable of self government

Safeguarding the rights of the individual by serving as a watchdog against
government

Servicing the economic system primarily by bringing together the buyers and
sellers of goods and services through the medium of advertising

Providing entertainment

Maintaining its own financial self sufficiency so as to be free from the pressures
of self interests
In a democratic system like the Philippines, the first three functions, especially that of
serving as a “watchdog,” are of utmost importance.
Added to these, the researchers have also decided to include another assumption not
part of the social responsibility theory- the assumption that the government does withhold
information from the public for many reasons.
20
1. Allocution theory
McQuail (2002) defines “allocution” as the information flow from a “service center”
(C) to an individual consumer (i). It is assumed that the service center has an unlimited
amount of information and only he decides what part of the “information stock” will be
distributed to the participating consumers.
According to him, this kind of setup “resembles that of a slave-master relationship.”
Because the master owns more than the slave, C becomes the “central leader” and i, no
matter how many they are, are the individual followers. The allocution pattern is only a
one way form of communication thus only the C has control of the information and the
i’s are merely receivers.
Figure 1. Allocution Theory Model
21
2. Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication
According to this model, a message begins from an information source which is
transmitted to a receiver. But before that message is received, it must go through “noise”
before it is conveyed to its destination.
The following are the factors Shannon and Weaver considered in their model (Dyer,
et al., n.d.):

Sender- The source of the information, where the message comes from. The
source sets the whole model into action.

Encoder- The transmitter which converts the message into signals.

Channel- The means by which the message is transmitted, be it verbal, written,
electronic, etc.

Noise- It is the interference or distortion that changes the original message;
anything that can misconstrue what was originally sent from the source.

Decoder- The interpreter which converts the message into one that the receiver
understands.

Receiver- The receiver takes in the message the source has sent out. Once the
message has been received, the process has ended.

Feedback- Feedback relates to the source whether their message has been
received or if it has been interpreted accurately.
22
Figure 2. Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication
B. Conceptual
In allocution, both the government and the media are “service centers” in their
own right as they are both gatekeepers of “information stock.” However, since this study
centers on government disclosure, the researchers opted to focus more on their side of
gatekeeping as opposed to the media’s.
23
Figure 3. Conceptual application Allocution theory
The government has complete control over the depth of information it chooses to
release, including what the content would be, when it would be published, and how that
content would be presented. In an ideal situation and as recognized by the social
responsibility theory, this information from the government should be made directly
available to the general public without passing through any other channel.
For a more comprehensive picture of the study, the researchers chose to slightly
modify Shannon and Weaver’s Communication Model. In this model, the government is
the sender, and their public information offices, as well as transcripts, records, files,
archives and press releases would be the encoder and the encoded, respectively. Note that
in the encoding process, noise can already take place.
24
Figure 4. Conceptual application Shannon and Weaver model
Instead of having the channel go before the decoder as in the original model, the
researchers deemed it fit to switch their positions in the diagram. The decoders of the
information would be the newsmakers who interpret the encoded data from the
government who would then trasmit the simplified message through print or electronic
media. This process, again, is not safe from noise. Information distortion is a possibility.
Using print or electronic media as channels, the message would reach the people and
would then generate positive, negative, or neutral feedback.
C. Operational
Using the modified version of Shannon and Weaver’s Model of Communication and
the allocution theory, the researchers would like to expound on the semi-linear process of
how the government chooses to keep and release information in the public sphere.
The study would work around the assumption that, in compliance to the
parameters of democracy, as previously mentioned, the government is in itself a “service
center” - one with a duty to its people to disclose sufficient records of their hearings,
25
dealings, and transactions without interfering with national security. It is helpful to note
that whatever the government releases has already been filtered, and in essence, should
not be self-destructive. This filtered information, though already made available to the
public, would be picked up by media outfits for further interpretation, and would again be
released to the public. It is through the public’s feedback, or their dealings with the
government, that they reflect the quality of information that has been given to them.
In line with this, an FOI act would ensure that the information they receive
through the media is attuned to actual government data, and would encourage them to be
more participative in the dealings of this institution. An FOI act would allow the general
public to check the facts for themselves, commend laudable government projects, and
condemn political dishonesty, as it would give the media additional credibility, and
would allow them to report the news faster, clearer, and more accurately.
26
Figure 5. Framework Operational Model
27
D. Operational definition of terms
1. channel- media (print or electronic)
2. Congress- legislative branch of the government
3. decoder- news organizations
4. encoder- government public offices, transcripts, records
5. freedom of information- exercise of one’s right to seek and get information
from the government
6. House of Representatives- part of the legislative branch composed of district
representatives and party list representatives
7. information- any knowledge, record, document, photographs, data, film and
sound material, electronic data stored or archived in whatever form or format
which are made, received or kept in any government agency
8. information source, service center- government
9. noise- conflict of interests from both media and the government (affiliations,
personal biases, editorial policies)
10. receiver, individual consumers- citizens, general public
11. Senate- another part of the legislative branch composed of nationally elected
officials
28
IV. METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
The study is historical and comparative. It is qualitative in nature and it aims to
answer why the Freedom of Information bill, despite its ten-year evolution, still has not
managed to make it past the walls of Congress.
1. Paper Trail
Researchers will be spending most of their time at the records department of the
House of Representatives and the Senate collating all the FOI bills that have been filed
since 1992. These bills are the study’s primary sources of information. The researchers
will then compare the similarities and differences between the bills.
Aside from these, the researchers will also be gathering transcripts of the
committee hearings wherein the bills were tackled in Senate and in the House of
Representatives to see the progress and development of these bills.
The thesis will also involve doing archival newspaper research to supplement the
interviews and the other materials that will be gathered from the House and the Senate.
The researchers have chosen to only consult one newspaper, the Philippine Daily
Inquirer, due to lack of time and manpower to be able to check others.
2. People Trail
The researchers will be conducting interviews with the bills’ principal author/s
and the other legislators who were involved with the bill at a certain time. These will be
29
in order that the researchers may gain a wider perspective on the bills and know the
circumstances surrounding them, including what hindered their passage.
The researchers will also be approaching the different stakeholders of the bill.
These include the media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other private
organizations involved in pushing for the passage of the bill. Their insights and analyses
will be able to help the researchers fulfill the objectives of the study.
B. Concepts and Indicators
This study would trace the path undergone by the different versions of the
Freedom of Information Bill during the last decade. Working around the fundamental
concept of freedom of information in a democracy, the indicators would be defined by
how each version of the bill measures up to this given ideal in terms of its declared
sanctions and exemptions, how far it has gone throughout the legislative process, and
how and why it has been junked in relation to its circumstances.
C. Data Gathering
Because of the historical, qualitative nature of this research, the researchers will
be getting most of their information from the records department of the HR and the
Senate, news articles, and through focus interviews of personalities who are involved in
the passage of the bill.
30
The list of interviewees include:
1.
Red Batario
Executive Director, Center for Community Development and Journalism
(CCJD)
CCJD was one of the organizations which formed part of the very first
coalition of organizations forwarding the cause for a FOI bill.
Interviewed February 12, 2013 at Tomas Morato Quezon city
2.
Vincent Lazatin
Director, Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN)
Along with CCJD, TAN also belonged to the first coalition of organizations
for the passage of a FOI law.
Interviewed March 5, 2013 at Katipunan Quezon city
3.
Ed Lingao
Multimedia Director, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
PCIJ is one of the organizations that have been most active in the
campaign for the passage of an FOI bill. Along with TAN and CCJD, it is also
one of the earliest members of the first coalition for the FOI.
Interviewed February 22, 2013 at Tomas Morato Quezon city
31
4.
Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan
Secretary, Access to Economic Reforms
Convenor, Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition
Atty. Malaluan was one of the pioneer individuals who decided to form a
coalition (then the Access to Information Network) pushing for the legislation of a
bill to guarantee freedom of information and its passage.
Interviewed December 13, 2012 at West Avenue Quezon city
5.
Representative Lorenzo Tanada III
Representative, 4th District, Quezon province
Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives (15th congress)
Rep. Tanada was known to be one of the legislative “champions” in
helping pass a FOI bill, especially during the 15th congress when he served as the
“spokesperson” of alliances and other organizations who wished for a law on
access to information.
Interviewed December 10, 2012 at Batasan Hills Quezon city
6.
Senator Antonio Trillanes IV
Senator, 15th Congress
Sen. Trillanes was one of the early filers of a FOI bill in Senate during the
15th congress.
Interviewed January 21, 2013 at Roxas Boulevard Pasay city
32
D. Data Analysis
The researchers will be compiling vital information about the bills through a
table. With the help of interviews and newspaper archives, they will be able to gain more
knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the different bills and ultimately, to answer
why a Freedom of Information Act in the Philippines has not yet been passed in all these
years.
E. Research Instrument
These are some of the possible questions the researchers may ask their interviewees:
1.
What is the need for an FOI act to be passed in the Philippines?
2.
What impact would its passage have to the government? To the country as a whole?
3.
What has your organization/office done to push for the passage of the bill?
4.
Why do you think an FOI law has not been passed all these years?
These are only general questions that had been asked to all the interviewees. Other
more specific questions arose depending on the position or affiliation of the person
interviewed.
33
F. Scope and Limitations
The thesis would give an accurate account of the history of the Freedom of
Information bill based on a paper trail through government records of the bills and
Congress proceedings where each version of the bill was discussed.
The key-informant interviews with primary proponents, non-government
supporters, critics, and adversaries were used to support and explain the information from
the archival research. Because the research mainly relies on these, lack of interviews and
little information gathered from the newspapers greatly affected the analysis and
discussion the researchers had provided regarding the topic.
Also for the newspaper research, the writers of this thesis only checked the
months and years in which there were FOI bills filed either at the lower house or at the
Senate. It would take too much time to go through all the years (from 1992-2012), thus
the researchers decided to limit the scope of newspapers to be checked.
The research is mainly a historical study and not an investigative one. The main
objective of the thesis was to give a historical overview of the FOI bill and what it had
undergone since it was first filed in 1992.
1. Time Table
June to October
Thesis proposal completion
October to December
Data gathering: Archival research of filed FOI bills
(since 1992) at the House of Representatives and
the Senate
Early to mid January
Interviews
34
Late January to February
Data compilation
Early March
First Draft
Mid March
Revisions
Late March
Second Draft
Early April
Binding
2. Budget
Transportation: House of Representatives, Senate, Interviews
P 1,000.00
Printing and photocopying: bills, committee hearing transcripts, other P 2,500.00
research data
TOTAL
P 3,500.00
35
V.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
According to most reports and studies, the first Freedom of Information bill was
filed by then Pangasinan First District Representative Oscar Orbos in 1992. Indeed, the
first FOI bill at the House of Representatives (House) was filed by him on August 31,
1992. However, it had been earlier filed at the Senate. Senator Alberto G. Romulo filed
the “Freedom of Access to Information Act” on July 1, 1992 while Senator Raul S. Roco
filed the “Right to Information Act” a day after. Only Rep. Orbos’ version was filed at
the House while two other versions were filed at the Senate after Senators Romulo and
Roco during the 9th Congress from 1992-1995.
Table 1.Matrix of Bills from 1992-1995
House of Representatives
Bill No.
Principal Author/s
1805
Oscar M. Orbos
Short Title
Freedom of
Information Act of
1992
Date filed
Committee referred to
31-Aug-92
Public Information
Senate
Bill No.
Principal Author/s
Short Title
Date filed
Committee/s referred to
*80
Alberto G.
Romulo
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
1-Jul-92
Public Information and
Mass Media
Raul S. Roco
Right to
Information Act
2-Jul-92
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
*206
36
*777
Francisco S. Tatad
Official
Information Access
Act of 1992
25-Sep-92
Public Information and
Mass Media
1242
(sponsors)
Coseteng, Herrera,
Roco, Romulo,
Tatad
Access to Official
Information Act of
1993
21-May-93
Public Information and
Mass Media
*Bills replaced by SB 1242 (substitute bill).
In the 10th Congress from 1995-1998, two FOI bills were filed at the House and
three at the Senate. At the 11th Congress from 1998-2001, three bills were filed each at
the House and the Senate.
Table 2.Matrix of Bills from 1995-1998
House of Representatives
Bill No.
Principal Author/s
3018
Romeo G.
Guanzon
7608
Raul A. Daza
Short Title
The Access to
Information Act of
1992
Date filed
Committee referred to
31-Aug-95
Public Information
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
29-Jul-96
Public Information
Principal Author/s
Short Title
Date filed
Committee referred to
Raul S. Roco
Access to
Information Act
27-Jul-95
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
Senate
Bill No.
946
37
1004
Francisco S. Tatad
Official
Information Access
Act of 1995
1038
Alberto G.
Romulo
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
1-Aug-95
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
3-Aug-95
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
Table 3.Matrix of Bills from 1998-2001
House of Representatives
Bill No.
2884
8196
Principal Author/s
Short Title
Date Filed
Committee Referred To
Harlin C. Abayon
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
25-Aug-98
Public Information
Jose Apolinario L.
Lozada Jr.
The Freedom of
Information Act of
1999
1-Sep-99
Public Information
Freedom of Access
**8947
Harlin C. Abayon to Information Act
16-Dec-99 Public Information
** Approved by the House on 11-Apr-00, transmitted to the Senate 12-Apr-00 and
received on 17-Apr-00.
Senate
Bill No.
121
Principal Author/s
Short Title
Juan Flavier
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
Date Filed
Committee Referred To
30-Jun-98
Public Information and
Mass Media
38
Official
Information Access
Francisco S. Tatad Act of 1998
Freedom of
Information Act of
Franklin M. Drilon 1999
358
1829
30-Jun-98
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
24-Nov-99
Public Information and
Mass Media
The following Congresses saw a rise at the number of bills being filed in both
houses. During the 12th Congress, six bills were filed at the House and the seventh was
filed as a substitute for the previous ones. Meanwhile only four were filed at the Senate.
Table 4.Matrix of Bills from 2001-2004
House of Representatives
Bill No.
Principal Author/s
*83
Apolinario L.
Lozada Jr.
Short Title
Freedom of
Information Act of
2001
Date Filed
Committee Referred To
2-Jul-01
Public Information
*382
Harlin C. Abayon
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
4-Jul-01
Public Information
Cynthia A. Villar
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
*780
6-Jul-01
Public Information
*4919
Romualdo T.
Vicencio
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
10-Jun-02
Public Information
*5609
Satur C. Ocampo
Freedom of
Information Act
21-Jan-03
Public Information
39
*5784
Loretta Ann P.
Rosales, Del R. De
Guzman, J.R.
Right to
Nereus O. Acosta, Information Act of
Mario Joy Aguja
2003
Freedom of Access
Jose Apolinario L. to Information Act
6671
Lozada Jr.
of 2003
*Bills replaced by HB 6671 (substitute bill).
24-Feb-03
Public Information
26-Jan-04
Rules
Date Filed
Committee Referred To
30-Jun-01
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
30-Jun-01
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
1-Jul-01
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
6-Sep-01
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
11-Sep-01
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
Senate
Bill No.
42
706
1099
1717
1728
Principal Author/s
Juan Flavier
Loren LegardaLeviste
Short Title
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
Official Access to
Information Act of
2001
Manuel B. Villar
Jr.
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
Blas F. Ople
Freedom of
Information Act of
2001
Francis N.
Pangilinan
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
40
2508
2631
Francis N.
Pangilinan
The Right to
Information Act of
2003
Noli de Castro
Right to
Information Act of
2003
26-Feb-03
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization; Finance
12-Aug-03
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization; Finance
At the 13th Congress from 2004-2007, five bills were filed at the House, with the
sixth being the substitute. Six bills were also filed in Senate. The researchers also noticed
that it was in this Congress that most of the bills filed had numerous authors and/or
sponsors unlike in previous Congresses wherein the FOI bills only named one or two
representatives as its authors (except for substitute bills).
Table 5.Matrix of Bills from 2004-2007
House of Representatives
Bill No.
Principal Author/s
Short Title
Date Filed
Committee Referred To
*784
Harlin C. Abayon
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
1-Jul-04
Public Information
41
*2123
Satur C. Ocampo,
Teodoro A.
Casino, Joel G.
Virador, Crispin B.
Beltran, Rafael V.
Mariano, Liza L.
Maza, Abraham B.
Mitra, Lorenzo R.
Tanada III,
Eduardo C.
Freedom of
Zialcita
Information Act
4-Aug-04
Public Information
*2993
Emmanuel Joel J.
Villanueva, Del R.
De Guzman,
Lorenzo R. Tanada
III, Loretta Ann P.
Rosales, Mario J.
Aguja, Ana
Freedom of Access
Theresia H.
to Information Act
Baraquel
of 2004
22-Sep-04
Public Information
*3041
Ernesto C. Pablo,
Edgar L. Valdez,
Sunny R.A.
Madamba
Electronic Access
to Information Act
23-Sep-04
Public Information
*3580
Loretta Ann P.
Rosales, Mario J.
Aguja, Ana
Theresia H.
Baraquel
Right to
Information Act of
2004
11-Jan-05
Public Information
8-Feb-07
Rules
Abayon, Ocampo,
Casino,
Villanueva, de
Guzman, Pablo,
Freedom of Access
Valdez, Madamba. to Information Act
6106
Rosales, Aguja
of 2007
*Bills replaced by HB 6106 (substitute bill).
42
Senate
Bill No.
Principal Author/s
Short Title
Date Filed
Committee Referred To
148
Luisa “Loi” P.
Ejercito Estrada
Improvement of
Information Access
Act
30-Jun-04
Public Information and
Mass Media
776
Manuel B. Villar
Jr.
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
30-Jun-04
Public Information and
Mass Media
1112
Freedom
of Information Act
Franklin M. Drilon of 2004
30-Jun-04
Public Information and
Mass Media
1206
Ramon Bong
Revilla Jr.
Official
Information Access
Act of 2004
1-Jul-04
Public Information and
Mass Media
1600
Miriam Defensor
Santiago
Improvement of
Information Access
Act
3-Aug-04
Public Information and
Mass Media
1633
Sergio R. Osmena
III
Freedom of
Information Act
4-Aug-04
Public Information and
Mass Media
During the 14th Congress, nine bills were filed at the House, with a 10th being a
substitute. Meanwhile, the 14th Congress saw the first substitute bill from the Senate. Six
bills were previously filed before the substitute.
43
Table 6.Matrix of Bills from 2007-2010
House of Representatives
Bill No.
Principal Author/s
Short Title
Date Filed
Committee Referred To
*194
Juan Edgardo M.
Angara
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
2-Jul-07
Public Information
*997
Emmanuel Joel J.
Villanueva
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
of 2007
10-Jul-07
Public Information
*1665
Joseph Emilio A.
Abaya
Freedom of
Information Act
1-Aug-07
Public Information
*2021
Emmylou J.
Talino-Mendoza
and Emmanuel
Joel J. Villanueva
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
of 2007
13-Aug-07
Public Information
*2059
Lorenzo R. Tanada Freedom of
III and Del R. De
Information Act of
Guzman
2007
14-Aug-07
Public Information
*2176
Aurelio D.
Gonzales Jr.
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
22-Aug-07
Public Information
*2223
Satur C. Ocampo,
Teodoro A.
Casino, Liza L.
Maza, Crispin B.
Beltran and
Luzviminda C.
Ilagan
Freedom of
Information Act
23-Aug-07
Public Information
Ernesto C. Pablo
Electronic Access
to Information Act
29-Aug-07
Public Information
*2293
44
*3116
Ana Theresia H.
Baraquel
Freedom of
Information Act of
2007
(sponsors)
Bienvenido M.
Abante Jr.,
Freedom of
Lorenzo L. Tanada Information Act of
**3732
III
2008
*Bills replaced by HB 3732 (substitute bill).
21-Nov-07
Public Information
10-Mar-08
Rules
**Approved on third reading on 12-May-08. Senate agreed on bicameral conference
committee report on 01-Feb-10 but House failed to pass the bill due to lack of quorum.
Senate
Bill No.
Principal Author/s
Short Title
Date Filed
Committee Referred To
*16
Ramon Revilla Jr.
Official
Information
Access Act of 2007
30-Jun-07
Public Information and
Mass Media
*109
Mar Roxas
Free Information
Act
30-Jun-07
Public Information and
Mass Media
*576
JinggoyEjercito
Estrada
Official
Information
Access Act of 2007
2-Jul-07
Public Information and
Mass Media
JinggoyEjercito
Estrada
Improvement of
Information Access
Act
2-Jul-07
Public Information and
Mass Media
*592
45
Manuel B. Villar
Jr.
*1578
*2571
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
12-Sep-07
Public Information and
Mass Media
Freedom of
Information Act
of 2008
27-Aug-08
Public Information and
Mass Media
3-Jun-2009
Public Information and
Mass Media; Civil
Service and Government
Reorganization
Loren Legarda
Ramon A. Revilla
Jr., Jinggoy P.
Ejercito-Estrada,
Manuel B. Villar
Jr., Alan Peter S.
Cayetano, Pia S.
Freedom of
Cayetano, Juan
Information Act of
**3308
Miguel F. Zubiri
2009
*Replaced by SB 3308 (substitute bill).
**Passed third reading on 14-Dec-09. Senate agreed on bicameral conference committee
report and approved the bill on 1-Feb-10 and was transmitted back to the House.
Finally, in the 15th Congress (2010-2013), there are 15 FOI bills currently filed at
the House with the last being a substitute. The Senate is not far behind with 14 FOI
legislations filed, the last also a substitute.
Table 7.Matrix of Bills from 2010-2013
House of Representatives
Bill No.
*11
Principal Author/s
Short Title
Date Filed
Committee Referred To
Rodolfo Biazon
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
1-July-10
Public Information
46
*22
Marcelino R.
Teodoro
Freedom Of
Information Act Of
2010
1-July-10
Public Information
*53
Freedom Of
Lorenzo R. Tanada Information Act Of
III
2010
1-July-10
Public Information
*59
Freedom Of
Information Act Of
2010
01-July-10
Public Information
01-July-10
Public Information
1-July-10
Public Information
Karlo Alexei B.
Nograles
*133
Freedom Of
Juan Edgardo M.
Information Act Of
Angara
2010
An Act To Ensure
Public Access To
Official Records,
Documents And
Any Other
Information Of
Teodoro A. Casino Public Concern Or
and Neri J.
Freedom Of
Colmenares
Information Act
*301
Walden F. Bello
and Arlene J. Bagao
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
1-July-10
Public Information
*830
Pedro P.
Romualdo
Right to Access
Information Act of
2010
4-July-10
Public Information
*1713
Sergio A.F.
Apostol
Freedom of
Information
and Protection of
Privacy Act of 2010 26-July-10
Public Information
*1968
Rachel Marguerite
B. Del Mar
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
Public Information
*86
29-July-10
47
*2128
WinnieCastelo
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
*2969
Salvador H.
Escudero III
Freedom of
Information Act
02-Sep-10
Public Information
Rodolfo W.
Antonino
Freedom of
Information and
Transparency Act
of 2011
21-Feb-11
Public Information
Sherwin N. Tugna
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
09-Jun-11
Public Information
*4252
*4851
04-Aug-10
Public Information
Joseph Victor G.
Ejercito
11-Sep-12
Biazon, Teodoro,
Tanada, Nograles,
Angara,
Colmenares, Belo,
Bag-Ao,
Romulado,
Apostol, del Mar,
Castelo, Escudero,
Antonino, Tugna,
Herrero, Evardone, An Act
Herrera-Dy, Cruz- Strengthening the
Gonzales, SyRight of Citizens to
Alvarado and
Information held by
6766
Hataman- Sallivan the Government
17-Dec-12
*Substituted by HB 6766 (substitute bill).
*6555
Public Information
Rules
48
Senate
Bill No.
Author/s
Short Title
Date Filed
Committee Referred To
Antonio F.
Trillanes IV
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
1-July-10
Public Information and
Mass Media
25
Ramon “Bong”
Revilla Jr.
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
1-July-10
Public Information and
Mass Media
126
Sergio Osmena III
Freedom of
Information Act
5-July-10
Public Information and
Mass Media
149
Francis N.
Panglinan
Freedom of
Information Act of
2009
6-July-10
Public Information and
Mass Media
158
Teofisto “TG”
Guingona III
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
6-July-10
Public Information and
Mass Media
162
Juan Mguel F.
Zubiri
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
6-July-10
Public Information and
Mass Media
1254
Manny Villar
Freedom of Access
to Information Act
12-July-10
Public Information and
Mass Media
1440
Loren Legarda
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
12-July-10
Public Information and
Mass Media
2086
Francis Escudero
Freedom of
Information Act
27-July-10
Public Information and
Mass Media
Gregorio Honasan
II
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
28-July-10
Public Information and
Mass Media
11
2189
49
2283
2354
Miriam Defensor
Santiago
Alan Peter
Catyetano
Freedom of
Information Act
2-Aug-10
Freedom of
Information Act of
2010
4-Aug-10
People's Ownership
of
Government
Information (POGI)
Act of 2012
7-May-12
Gregorio Honasan
II
Antonio F.
Trillanes, Ramon
A. Revilla Jr.,
Sergio R. Osmena
III, Francis N.
Pangilinan,
TeofistoGuingona
III, Manny B.
Villar, Loren B.
Legarda, Miriam
Defensor Santiago,
Francis G.
Escudero,
People's Ownership
Gregorio B.
of
Honasan II, Alan
Government
Peter Cayetano,
Information (POGI)
**3208
Franklin M. Drilon Act of 2012
23-May-12
**Approved on third reading on 17-Dec-12.
3183
Public Information and
Mass Media
Public Information and
Mass Media
Public Information and
Mass Media
Public Information and
Mass Media
Summing up, from 1992-2012, or in a span of 20 years, 44 FOI bills have been
filed each at the House and the Senate.
The next parts will give a more in depth and detailed discussion of the
circumstances surrounding the FOI bills based on what the writers will have gathered
from their interviews and newspaper archival research.
50
A. History of the FOI
1. Developments from the different Congresses
During the course of this research, the writers encountered difficulty finding
information on the early beginnings of the FOI bill. No articles came out in the
newspaper and even the interviewees could not give any information as to how and why a
bill to guarantee freedom of information started in the Philippine legislature.
However, Ed Lingao, Multimedia Director of the Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), said this could have been because there were really
“other things that appeared on the plate of everybody else that time.” For one, the year
the first bill was filed, which was in 1992, was also the year the country held its first
presidential elections since the EDSA People Power. Lingao also added that during this
time the Government of the Republic of the Philippines had ongoing peace talks with the
National Democratic Front of the Philippines(E. Lingao, personal communication,
February 22, 2013).
Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan, secretary of the Access to Economic Reforms
(AER) and convenor of the Right to Know, Right Now! (R2KRN) coalition, said it was at
the latter part of the 11th congress and the beginning of the 12th that the AER discovered
other organizations who shared the same sentiment about the freedom of access to
information. The AER had organized a forum regarding the FOI and had met these other
groups, like the Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN) and other media
groups, for a passage of a bill that would guarantee FOI (N. Malaluan, personal
communication, December 13, 2012).
51
Malaluan also said that after the forum, “we decided to engage in the legislative
process.” They talked to different representatives and senators regarding their advocacy
and Malaluanclaimed that it was during the 12th congress where the “the first bill of FOI
that embodied some level of consultation with public interest organizations” was filed.
It was in 2001 when the Access to Information Network (ATIN) was formed.
Malaluan said the some of the first members of ATIN were the Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and the Transparency and Accountability Network
(TAN). There were other legal and public interest groups who formed part of the
network. Malaluan said all the members agreed “that part of the problem was the absence
of a more comprehensive FOI legislation that would supplement what is guaranteed in
the constitution.”
It was also in 2001 when PCIJ released a book entitled “Access to Information in
Southeast Asia.” The book “examines the state of media in these [SEA] countries and the
obstacles faced by journalists and citizens who wish to obtain access to public records
(PCIJ, 2001).”
However for Red Batario, executive director of the Center for Community
Journalism and Development, because a more “concerted effort” for the FOI was just
beginning, it did not really “take off” during the 12th congress. The FOI was still not a
priority for the legislators at the House of Representatives (R. Batario, personal
communication, February 12, 2013).
In the 13th congress, Batario said they also started working with different
international organizations to be able to “drum up support” for the passage of the bill.
52
Vincent Lazatin, director of the TAN, said the ATIN was still a very small group,
composed of “maybe about less than 10 organizations.” Same as the 12th congress, the
13th also did not see any significant change or leap in terms of pushing for the legislation
of an FOI bill. The impeachment of former President Joseph “Erap” Estrada happened in
2001. However this incident did not prove enough to jumpstart a public clamour for the
passage of a bill that would guarantee the citizens information as to where their taxes go
or as to where the president spends the people’s money. Malaluan said Estrada’s
impeachment even “disrupted” the progression of the bill (V. Lazatin, personal
communication, March 5, 2013)
In 2005, then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who took the seat upon
Estrada’s impeachment, was involved in an election-related controversy.
Also known as the “’Hello Garci’ Scandal,” the controversy involved President
Arroyo and then Election Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. In June 2005, audio
recordings of a phone conversation allegedly between the both of them talking about the
rigging of the 2004 national election results were released to the public. Allegations such
as fraud and electoral cover up were thrown to Arroyo and some of her allies. There were
also attempts to impeach her but then did not succeed. In 2006, the Department of Justice
cleared Garcillano of the perjury charges filed against him.
Post 2005, Lazatin said more groups started to realize the importance of the
freedom of information.
By the time the 14th congress came around in 2007, the R2KRN campaign, and
the coalition along with it, began. That, in order to generate more public clamour for the
53
passage of the bill, a group of only ten media and anti corruption organizations had to get
more members from other sectors, thus creating a larger coalition.
With a wider coalition came more activities. Both Batario and Lazatin said the
formation of a broader coalition also led to the start of mobilizations to “put pressure on
the legislators to pass the freedom of information.”
2. The 14th Congress: A Special Case
In a span of seven congresses (1992 to present), out of the 80 plus bills filed in
both houses, it was only in the 14th Congress that the FOI bill would have become a law.
However, in the final step before the bill was to be sent to the president for signing, it was
killed.
House Bill (HB) 3732, entitled “An Act Implementing the Right of Access to
Information on Matters of Public Concern Guaranteed Under Section Twenty-Eight,
Article II and Section Seven, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and for Other Purposes”
or the “Freedom of Information Act of 2008,” was a substitute for nine bills which had
been previously filed in at the House and referred to the committee on public information
for deliberation.
On April 30, 2008, the bill passed second reading in the House. On May 12, it
approved the bill with 197 out of 220 voting in favour of it. However it was still in May
2009 that the Senate conducted committee hearings that tackled its own version of the
bill. A committee report was finalized and in June 3, 2009, the Senate Committee on
54
Public Information and Mass Media, headed by Senator Gregorio B. Honasan, filed
Senate Bill (SB) 3308 or the “Freedom of Information Act of 2009” in substitute for six
bills previously filed. On December 2009, the bill passed its second and third reading in
Senate. In January 2010, a bicameral conference committee was formed to tackle
revisions in the Senate and House bills (Panela, 2010, p.7).
The Senate approved the revised SB 3308 on February 1, 2010 and sent it back to
the House for its third and final reading. On February 3, before going into recess to
prepare for the May 2010 elections, the House failed to approve the bill for lack of
quorum. Upon resumption on June 4, the House suspended the national canvassing of
May 10 votes supposedly to tackle pending legislative measures. This session was the
bill’s last chance to become a law before the 15th Congress would open. Bienvenido
Abante, representative of the sixth district of Manila, moved to ratify the FOI bill but
Camiguin representative Pedro Romualdo objected and asked for a roll call. The House
needed 135 present members to constitute a quorum. House speaker Prospero Nograles,
Davao first district representative, adjourned the session when the secretary general said
there were only 128 present on the floor (Panela, 2010, p. 7).
Malaluan said it was in the 14th Congress when the movement realized the
magnitude of political pressure. When it came to FOI, he admitted that “there is a very
strong, unstated opposition with politicians. There is no one that says I oppose FOI bill
but the actions run contrary to that public statement.”
55
Malaluan said it was made evident by what happened through the delays that had
transpired in the lower house. According to him, legislators in the House, some, very
influential, are very sensitive to criticism, thus causing the silent resistance to the bill.
When the bill was ready for ratification and the Chair refused to mention anything
about it in the agenda, Malaluan revealed that the process might be simple, yet “even if
you study the rules, it’s different from how it’s implemented.”
Regarding the lack of quorum, Malaluan admitted that although the advocates
were trying to reach the members of congress to encourage them to join the commitment
to put the bill to a vote, they already knew there were text messages going around asking
congressmen not to attend. “When we got the roll call result of the day, we thought that,
hey, the other groups that were asking congressmen not to come, who were members of
congress themselves won the convincing.” But they found out that night of the following
day that by their count, as well as videos and various statements of representatives who
have attended, there were at least eight representatives actually present on the floor when
the roll call was made, and there was, indeed a quorum on that day.
Malaluan pressed that a learning point from the quorum episode was the need for
a mechanism to verify the numbers because the incident can happen again. “It can happen
both ways – they might call a quorum when there aren’t a sufficient number of people on
the floor. They can also call a non-quorum even if there are enough people.”
56
3. FOI during the 15th Congress
In the 15th Congress, the bill has received unbalanced attention from the House
and the Senate. 10 bills have been filed in the House as Congress opened in July 2010,
and a Technical Working Group (TWG) led by Rep. Erin Tanada was formed in February
2011, following the endorsement of the bill made by President Aquino in January of the
same year. The TWG moved to consolidate the 15 bills filed in the House, including the
provisions suggested by Malacañang. The substitute bill authored by Tanada has
languished in the House for over a year, with Eastern Samar Representative and
Committee of Public Information Chairman Ben Evardone failing to call for hearings to
discuss the FOI during 2011. The bill was next discussed during the March 13, 2012
hearing, followed by a hearing in October that reportedly got cancelled because there was
a “lack of room” in which to conduct it. Tanada maintained that he found a room to
conduct the hearing and thereby informed Evardone, yet his offer was dismissed because
he “failed to coordinate” with Evardone from the start.
At the November 13, 2012 hearing, Nueva Ecija Rep. Rodolfo Antonino proposed
the insertion of a Right of Reply provision which took up almost two hours of the
session's time. When a motion was made and seconded to finally put the bill to a vote,
Antonino moved to adjourn the hearing due to a technicality.
The fourth hearing of the bill was on November 27, 2012, when the bill was
finally approved in the committee level with 17 representatives voting for, 3 voting
against, and 1 abstaining. After it was approved, however, Evardone called for another
hearing to approve or sign the committee report instead of officially sending it over to the
57
plenary. “The practice here in the house by the different committees is that once a bill is
approved, you just pass around the bill or ask somebody to go to the different members
and have them signed,” said Tanada. In that light, according to him, this hearing can be
considered another “delaying tactic” by the chair (L. Tanada, personal communication,
December 10, 2012).
In contrast to the sluggish pace of the bill in the House, its journey in Senate has
proven to be more rewarding. On May 7 2012, Sen. Gregorio Honasan II filed SB 3183
or the People’s Ownership of Government Information (POGI) Act of 2012. This was
then consolidated with the previous bills filed in Senate into SB 3208, the substitute bill
of the same name. This bill breezed through Senate on its first and second reading, with
Sen. Miriam Defensor adding a couple of major amendments, all of which were easily
accepted.
On December 17, 2012, the POGI bill went like a bullet through Senate on its
third and final reading.
4. Recent Developments on FOI
Although the bill’s advocates have lobbied for it right after session resumed from
the Christmas break, a blockade arose in the form of a sudden withdrawal of support from
the Makabayan partylist bloc.
Nine days before congress closed for the upcoming election, Anakpawis Rep.
Rafael Mariano, ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio, Kabataan Rep. Raymond Palatino,
58
Gabriela Reps. Emmi de Jesus and Luzviminda Ilagan, and Bayan Muna Reps. Teddy
Casino and Neri Colmenares all pulled out backing in dissatisfaction with Malacanang’s
move to insert provisions that exempt disclosure in areas regarding national security and
executive privilege, “watering down” HB 6766, the current version of the FOI bill.
Casino also removed himself from co-authorship of this bill, saying this was no longer
the genuine FOI he was pushing for.
Despite this, The Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition has issued a statement in
support of the Aquino-endorsed bill a year prior to the Makabayan bloc’s withdrawal of
support.
In their statement, the coalition said the President’s endorsement achieves two
things. “First is it removes the main reason why the bill has been stalled in the legislative
wringer, particularly at the House of Representatives, and second, it resolves the
‘concerns’ about the bill that the President has expressed, thereby reducing the danger of
a Presidential veto.”
“I think (the Malacanang version) is something that is acceptable to the FOI
advocates. We've bent a little on some areas and these are the areas which I think are not
the non negotiables,” said Lazatin.
With the dilly-dallying of the House, and session formally closing last February 9,
2013, the Freedom of Information bill is officially “dead” in the 15th Congress.
59
5. Future for the FOI Bill
“The future for FOI is that it won’t go away. The politicians fear it but it won’t go
away because it’s a guarantee that people will demand. When it will be passed is a
matter of when. It‘s a matter of time.” – Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan
The freedom to give and receive information regardless of frontiers has been
declared a human right by the United Nations in 2005. This leads the supporters of the
bill to tenaciously seek its passage not only as a basic right and but also as a standard of
democracy.
Lingao claimed the passage of the bill depends on the president. “If the president
continues to waffle on the FOI, concern is that you might still not get an FOI even under
a more democratic president.”
Sen. Trillanes, Batario, and Lazatin however agree that the bill’s passage could
still be seen during Aquno’s term, most likely in the latter part of the 16th Congress. “By
then, the Aquino administration would be going out, and he may use that, leave that as a
legacy which cannot be used against him because he’s on the way out. The new policy
now would be implemented during the next administration, which is definitely not
Aquino because he’s only good for one term,” said Trillanes.
“It's hard to be a president on a platform of good governance and daang matuwid
without having the freedom of information, So perhaps towards the end of his term, we
might see him supporting the bill,” added Lazatin.
60
The bill’s future also depends on building enough public clamour to add pressure
on the legislators for its passage. Advocates of the bill have added that they have a lot of
work to do in terms of making the bill an everyday issue for Filipino citizens, because as
it is, it merely seems like a highfaluting piece of legislation that only the media would
benefit from, which in fact, isn’t the case.
“People don't seem to be able to relate to FOI because they are not able to relate
information with their daily lives,” said Batario, adding that it is a challenge for the
advocates to campaign more vigorously in pursuit of a more heightened public
awareness.
“You have to try to break the concept down into chewable pieces,” Batario added,
“because unless you have public support, like what happened with Cybercrime, nothing
will happen.”
B. Contributors and Obstacles to the passage of the FOI
Numerous interconnected factors have both contributed to and hindered the
passage of the FOI bill in the Philippines. To be discussed below are some of the most
salient factors, as agreed upon by the interviewees for this thesis.
1. Presidential Support
All the interviewees agreed that a show of support from the president or a signal
from him to prioritize the bill greatly affects its chances of getting passed into a law.
During the course of the FOI bill, none of the presidents have actively shown support for
61
the bill, which could have explained the slow pace of its passage throughout all these
years.
Batario said that presidents have a “large effect” on the legislative process when
they certify a bill as urgent. As Lingao put it, what is needed is a “clear, unequivocal
support from the President.”
But this has not been evident throughout the history of the FOI. As earlier
mentioned, only President Noynoy Aquino has expressed support for the bill but he has
also continually shown otherwise, citing the lack of public clamour to be one of the main
reasons for his inaction.
Lazatin, however disagreed, saying that was not the “real issue.”
“I think the president has discomfort with sharing information, especially the
media,” he said. Lazatin added that two of Aquino’s fears are, (1) abuse of the
information by the media and (2) abuse of the information by his political rivals or
opponents.
“I don’t think he should be fearful of [those]. If he is on the daang matuwid, no
matter what information people would dig up at throw at [him], if there’s nothing wrong,
there’s nothing wrong, right?” he said.
But the president’s influence may also only be a small factor in the legislative
making process. For example, President Arroyo never supported the bill (and the
interviewees agreed she never would), but it was during her term that the bill got its
farthest.
62
2. Public Clamour
Considering the issue of public demand for the bill, interviewees agreed that there
is “substantive demand” but that it “isn’t enough.”
Batario said, “people don’t seem to be able to relate to FOI because they are not
able to relate information with their daily lives.” Lazatin said people think it is a “very
high level policy issue.”
For Batario, the FOI mainly catered to those involved in the campaign and they
failed to engage other citizens, to whom the bill is also supposed to benefit. Batario added
that there had been a failure to “generate public support” and that getting more citizens
involved should be the focus of future campaigns, especially for the 16th congress.
Lingao, meanwhile, said the concept of the FOI is really “difficult to explain.”
People are more concerned with oil and rice prices.
“But as a voter or as a constituent, you should have the freedom to ask where the
money of your barangay is going. Why does your health center lack budget, whereas
your councillor seems to be getting richer?”
3. Right of Reply
Another major factor that has been the cause of delay in the passage of the FOI is
the debate on the inclusion of a right of reply (ROR) provision in the proposed law.
Nueva Ecija Rodolfo Antonino’s version of the bill includes an ROR provision
that allows any person involved in an issue relating to the obtained documents to explain
63
or account for the issue in the media. In an article by GMA News, Rep. Antonino
reportedly “vowed” to block moved to approve the bill if it will not include his ROR
provision (Calonzo, 2012).
Media groups have especially expressed strong opposition to the provision,
stating that it violates press freedom and undermines editorial independence.
In a statement, supporters of the FOI said Rep. Antonino wasted time during the
final committee hearing for the bill “on his redundant insistence on having his complaint
heard.” According to the statement, Rep. Antonino had raised his issue regarding the
ROR and it had already been resolved then.
For Lazatin, the ROR is a “completely different issue” and should not have
anything to do with freedom of information and insisted the FOI should not be held
“hostage” for an issue that does not have any constituency outside the walls of
Congress.”
4. Legislative body itself
But, the biggest factor that contributes to the passage or non passage of the bill is
the lawmakers themselves. They agreed that much of the resistance comes from the
House of Representatives. None of them will outrightly say that they are against the bill’s
passage but it has been evident in their dilly dallying and the delaying tactics that have
been employed in discussing the FOI bill.
FOI advocates and supporters, for example, “speculated” that the June 4, 2010
session that was finally to approve the FOI bill during the 14th congress was “scripted by
[then House Speaker Prospero] Nograles and Malacanang (Panela, 2010, p.7).”
64
In a report by released by GMA News, Malou Mangahas of PCIJ wrote that
House leadership under Nograles “had [also] been found in default of audit and budget
procedures by the Commission on Audit (COA).” Mangahas added that over the years the
House under Nograles had been awarding itself “bigger and bigger budgets.” Reportedly,
many of the contracts for the renovation and adding of facilities to the House have raised
allegations of being “overpriced and negotiated.”
Further, the article claimed that suspicion lingers that more secrets have been
“kept under lock and key in the House.” Supporters of the FOI have argued that the bill
would have served the public well. There could possibly be other “skeletons in the
closet” Nograles did not want exposed (Mangahas, 2010).
Forward to the 15th congress and another leadership has been put into question by
FOI advocates. In a statement released by the R2KRN dated November 13, 2012, the
coalition accused Committee on Public Information Chairman Ben Evardone of being
“the biggest disappointment of all” through his “failure of leadership.”
Evardone had been scrutinized for employing several “delaying tactics” in
discussing the bill during the 15th congress. Added to this, he had also been quoted to
“accuse” the President and members of the Liberal Party for the delay in the passage of
the bill (R2KRN, 2012).
In a news report, Ifugao Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr. accused Evardone of
protecting his “former allies” in the Arroyo administration, using it as an explanation for
his resistance to the bill.
65
Rep. Tanada himself said it was his “lack of interest in calling for hearings with
regard to the FOI” that had seriously hindered its passage in the 15th congress. Tanada
said that had there been more hearings conducted, the issues concerning the FOI,
including the inclusion of a right of reply section, would have been answered.
“Now the number of session days is limited, this is when he wants to call for a
hearing to show he’s interested in the bill,” Tanada said.
Meanwhile, Batario claimed that because most of these representatives are still
part of the “political elite,” they will not allow the passage of a law that could put their
dynasties in danger. He also said that it was the Senate who had always been more open
to the FOI bill, especially from the 13th-15th congresses.
According to Atty. Malaluan, the difference between Senate and House is that
senators are more used to public scrutiny than congressmen. This could be one of the
reasons why the bill differs drastically in pace in the two houses.
“Because they’re in the national limelight, under scrutiny by the media and
various groups, they don’t fear transparency anymore. In contrast to the house, many are
still not used to this. They’re very sensitive to criticism. And many of them would really
rather not be noticed in the national scale.”
Added to this, Lingao said that because senators are elected on a national level
they are “of a more sophisticated mindset.” For him, senators think more of what the
media wants, unlike congressmen who “tend to pander more on patronage politics,” that
is, what would enable them to be re-elected.
66
In a statement released September 2012, the R2KRN concluded the “real fear”
about the FOI that makes legislators hesitant to support it “is that it will open the door to
legitimate public scrutiny into their official acts and transactions, and enable the people’s
right to know the good, the bad, and the ugly about them all.
C. Comparison of Recent Bills
The bills that have gone farthest in the legislative process are HB 3732, “The
Freedom of Information Act of 2008,” HB 6766, “The Freedom of Information Act of
2012,” and SB 3208, the "People's Ownership of Government Information (POGI) Act of
2012.”
Essentially, all the bills agree on the non-negotiable provisions such as mandating
openness, accessibility, and accountability in all branches and offices of government,
developing quick and efficient implementation of procedures, and conducting orderly
appeal systems in case of denial of access. However, the bills differ in a few of its
exceptions. Noting that HB 6766 is the direct result of the Aquino-mandated Technical
Working Group (TWG), and SB 3208 was based from HB6766, it can be seen that
executive privilege has gained more control over exceptions in these two as compared to
the one filed in the previous congress.
Table 8 contains a more in-depth comparison of the different bills’ provisions,
exceptions, and liabilities. Full copies of said bills will be provided in the appendix.
67
Table 8. Comparison of consolidated bills.
Congress
Filed
Authors
Access
toInformati
on
HB 3732
14th
HB 6766
15th
SB 3208
15th
Angara, Del Mar,
Villanueva, CruzGonzales,
Abaya,TAliroMendozat, Anadad, E
Guzman, Gonzales,
Ocampo, Casino,
Pablo, HontiverosBaraquel, Coquilla,
Fua, Teodoro, Haito,
Maza, Beltran,
Ilagan, Abante,
Codilla, Daza,
Alcala, Biazon, et. al
Biazon, Teodoro,
Tanada, Nograles,
Angara, Casino,
Colmenares, Bello,
Bag-ao, Romualdo,
Apostol, Del Mar,
Castelo, Escudero,
Antonino, Tugna,
Ejercito, Evardone,
Herrera-Dy, Cruz
Gonzales, Sy-Alvarado,
Hataman-Salliman
Trillanes, Revilla Jr.,
Osmena III,
PangilinanGuingona
III, Villar, Legarda,
Santiago, Escudero,
Honasan II, Cayetano
(A.)
Sec. 6 - All
information
pertaining to official
acts, transactions or
decisions, as well as
government research
data used as basis for
policy development,
regardless of their
physical form or
format
Sec. 5 – Every person
who is a Filipino
citizen has a right to
and shall, on request,
be given access to any
record under the
control of a
government agency.
Government agencies
shall make available to
the public for scrutiny,
copying and
reproduction as
provided, all
information pertaining
to official acts,
transactions, or
decisions, as well as
government research
data used as a basis for
policy development,
subject to the
exceptions in Sec. 7
Sec. 5. Every Filipino
citizen has a right to
and shall, on request,
be given access to
any record under the
control of a
government agency.
Government agencies
shall make available
to the public for
scrutiny, copying and
reproduction in the
manner provided by
this Act, all
information
pertaining to official
acts, transactions or
decisions, as well as
government research
data used as a basis
for
policy development,
subject to the
exceptions
enumerated under
68
Exceptions
Sec. 8
 Clear and
present
danger of war,
invasion or
any external
threat to the
State as
determined by
the Office of
the President
and/or the
Secretary of
the
Department of
National
Defense
 Related to
foreign
affairs, when
its revelation
would unduly
weaken the
negotiating
position of the
government in
an ongoing
bilateral or
multilateral
negotiation or
seriously
jeopardize the
diplomatic
relations of
the
Philippines
with one or
more states
with which it
section 7 of this Act,
regardless of their
physical form or
format in which they
are contained and by
whom they were
made.
Sec. 7
Sec. 7
 Information
 The
specifically
information
authorized to be
directly
kept secret
relates to
under
national
guidelines
security or
established by
defense and
an executive
its revelation
order which is
may cause
directly related
grave damage
to national
to the national
security or
security or
defense and its
internal and
revelation may
external
cause grave
defense of the
damage to the
State; or 2)
internal and
The
external defense
information
of the State
requested
pertains to the
 Information
foreign affairs
pertaining to
of the
foreign affairs
Republic of
that upon
the
revelation
Philippines,
would unduly
when its
weaken the
revelation
negotiating
may weaken
position of the
the
government or
negotiating
seriously
position of the
jeopardize the
government in
diplomatic
an ongoing
relations of the
bilateral or
Philippines with
multilateral
one of more
negotiation or
states. The
seriously
executive order
jeopardize the
shall specify the
69

intends to
keep friendly
relations,
except that
such
information
must always
be accessible
to either
House of
Congress
Internal and
external
defense and
law
enforcement,
when the
revelation
thereof would
render a
legitimate
military
operation
ineffective,
unduly
compromise
the
prevention,
detection or
suppression of
a criminal
activity, or
endanger the
life or
physical
safety of
confidential
or protected
sources or
witnesses, law
enforcement
and military
personnel or
their
immediate
families.


reasonable
period after
which the
information
shall be
automatically
declassified or
subject to
mandatory
declassification
review
Information
consisting of
records of
minutes, advice
given and
opinions
expressed
during decisionmaking or
policy
formulation
which is
invoked
privileged by
the Chief
Executive for
reason of
sensitivity of
subject matter
Information
pertaining to
internal and/or
external
defense, law
enforcement,
and border
control which
upon disclosure
would
compromise
military or law
enforcement
operation and
detection and
suppression of
diplomatic
relations of
the
Philippines
with any state;
Provided,
further, that
the executive
order shall
specify the
reasonable
period after
which the
information
shall be
automatically
declassified or
subject to
mandatory
declassificatio
n review, and
that any
reasonable
doubt as to
classification
and
declassificatio
n shall be
settled in
favor of the
right to
information;

The
information
consist of
records of
minutes,
records of
advice given
or records of
opinions
expressed
during
decisionmaking or
70

Information
relating to the
details of the
administration
, budget and
expenditure,
and
management
of the
defenseandla
w
enforcement
agencies shall
always he
accessible to
the public
The
information
pertains to
trade,
industrial,
financial or
commercial
secrets of a
third party
natural or
juridical
person,
obtained in
confidence by
a government
agency
whenever the
revelation
thereof would
seriously
prejudice the
interests of
the third party
in trade,
industrial,
financial or
commercial
competition,
unless the
third party has



criminal
activity, deprive
a person of a
right to a fair
trial, lead to the
disclosure of
the identity of a
confidential
source, disclose
techniques for
law
enforcement
investigations
or prosecutions,
and endanger
the life or safety
of any
individual
Information
pertaining to
personal
information of a
natural person
other than the
requesting
party, which
upon disclosure
would be a
violation of
personal
privacy
Trade secrets
and commercial
or financial
information
obtained from a
person other
than the
requesting
party, or
obtained in
confidence or
covered by
privileged
communication
Classified
policy
formulation,
invoked by
the Chief
Executive to
be privileged
by reason of
the sensitivity
of the subject
matter or by
reason of the
impairment of
the Chief
Executive's
deliberative
process that
would result
from the
disclosure
thereof. Once
policy has
been
formulated
and decisions
made, minutes
and research
data may be
made
available for
disclosure
unless they
were made in
executive
session.

The
information
requested
pertains to
internal
and/or
external
defense, law
enforcement,
and border
control, when
71




consented to
the disclosure
of the
information
The
information is
privileged
from
production in
legal
proceedings
by law or by
the Rules of
Court, unless
the person
entitled to the
privilege has
waived it;
The
information is
exempted by
statutes of
Congress, in
addition to
those
provided in
this section
The
information is
obtained by
any
committee of
either House
of Congress in
executive
session; and
Drafts of
decisions of
any executive,
administrative
, judicial or
quasi-judicial
body in the
exercise of
their
adjudicatory
information by
Rules of Court
the disclosure
thereof may
compromise
or intervere
with any
legitimate
military or
law
enforcement
operation,
interfere with
prevention,
detection, or
suppression of
criminal
activity, lead
to the
disclosure of
the identity of
a confidential
source,
disclose
legitimate
techniques
and
procedures of
law
enforcement,
endanger the
life or
physical
safety of any
individual
Sec. 10 – Exemption
from Compliance – The
government agency
shall be excused from
complying with a
subsequent identical or
substantially similar
request from the same
requesting party where
it has previously
complied with a request
for information unless a
reasonable interval has
lapsed between
compliance with the
previous request and
the making of the
current request.

The
information
requested
consists of
drafts of
orders,
resolutions,
decisions,
memoranda or
audit reports
by any
executive,
72
functions are
being
requested.
administrative
, regulatory,
constitutional,
judicial or
quasi-judicial
body in the
exercise of
their
regulatory,
audit and
adjudicatory
function.

The
information
requested is
obtained by
either House
of Congress,
or any
committee
thereof, in
executive
session.

The
information
requested
pertains to the
personal
information of
a natural
person other
than the
requesting
party, and its
disclosure
would
constitute an
unwarranted
invasion of
his or her
personal
privacy,
unless it
forms part of
73
a public
record, or the
person is or
was an
official of a
government
agency and
the
information
relates to his
or her public
function or
the person has
consented, in
writing, to the
disclosure of
the
information;

The
information
requested
pertains to
trade secrets
and
commercial or
financial
information
obtained from
a natural or
juridical
person other
than the
requesting
party,
obtained in
confidence or
covered by
privileged
communicatio
n, and/or filed
with a
government
agency,
whenever the
revelation
74
thereof would
prejudice the
interests of
such natural
or juridical
person in
trade,
industrial,
financial or
commercial
competition
Notable
Sec. 13 – Mandatory
Sec. 8 – Mandatory

The
information is
classified as
privileged
communicatio
ns in legal
proceedings
by law or by
the Rules of
Court.

The
information
requested is
exempted
from
disclosure by
law or by the
Constitution,
in addition to
those
provided in
this section

The
information
has already
been made
accessible as
provided in
Section 13 of
this Act.
Sec. 8 – Mandatory
75
Provisions
Disclosure of
Transactions
Involving Public
Interest -Subject to
Sections 7 and 8 of
this Act, all
government agencies
shall post on their
bulletin boards and
upload on their
websites all the steps,
negotiations and key
government positions
pertaining to definite
propositions
of the government, as
well as the contents
of the contract,
agreement or treaty
in the following
transactions
involving public
interest.
SEC. 14. Promotion
of Openness in
Government. -(a)
Duty to Publish
Information Government agencies
shall regularly
publish and
disseminate, at
no cost to the public
and in an accessible
form, by print and
through their
wehsite, timely, true,
accurate and updated
key information

Improving
Capability Every
government
agency shall
Disclosure of
Information a) the
annual Statement of
Assets, Liabilities, and
Net Worth (SALN) of
the President, the VicePresident, the Members
of the Cabinet, the
Members of the Senate
and the House of
Representatives,
Justices of the Supreme
Court, Commissioners
of the Constitutional
Commissions and other
constitutional offices,
and the officers of the
Armed Forces with the
rank of general or the
equivalent flag rank
b) All agencies of all
branches of
government shall
publish on their
websites a register of
the Freedom of
Information Manual in
full, Rules of Procedure
and rules of general
applicability, and
public interest
documents or records.
The register shall
contain a brief
description of the
transaction involved,
including the nature
and object of
transaction, the parties
and amounts involved,
the key steps
undertaken towards its
conclusion, and the
relevant dates provided
that contracts involving
Disclosure of
Information a) the
annual Statement of
Assets, Liabilities,
and Net Worth
(SALN) of the
President, the VicePresident, the
Members of the
Cabinet, the
Members of the
Senate and the House
of Representatives,
Justices of the
Supreme Court,
Commissioners of the
Constitutional
Commissions and
other constitutional
offices, and the
officers of the Armed
Forces with the rank
of general or the
equivalent flag rank
b) All agencies of all
branches of
government shall
upload on their
websites, which shall
be updated monthly,
a register of the
following public
interest transactions,
documents or records
including the annual
budget of government
agencies, itemized
monthly collections
and disbursement,
summaries of
income, components
of the IRA utilization,
annual procurement
plans and
procurement lists,
76
ensure the
provision of
adequate
training for its
officials to
improve
awareness of
the right to
information
and the
provisions of
this Act, and
to keep
updated of
best practices
in relation to
information
disclosure,
records
maintenance
and archiving.
an amount of at least
Fifty Million Pesos
(P50,000,000.00) shall
be published in full of
the site of the
concerned government
agency or the Official
Gazette Online.
and items to bid,
among others (see 718)

The register
shall contain a
brief
description of
the
transaction
involved,
including the
nature and
object of
transaction,
the parties and
amounts
involved, the
key steps
undertaken
towards its
conclusion,
and the
relevant dates
provided that
contracts
involving an
amount of at
least Fifty
Million Pesos
(P50,000,000.
00) shall be
published in
full of the site
of the
concerned
government
agency or the
Official
Gazette
Online.

Each
government
agency shall
regularly
Sec. 9 – Promotion of
Openness in
Government –
Government agencies
shall regularly publish,
print, and disseminate
at no cost true,
accurate, and updated
key information
Sec. 11 – Additional
Protection of Privacy –
the Act affords full
protection of the right
to privacy of
individuals
Sec. 20 – Keeping of
Records – Government
agencies shall create
and maintain accurate
and reasonably
complete
documentation of their
organization, policies,
transactions, decisions,
resolutions, enactions,
et. al. Agencies shall
coordinate with the
National Archives of
the Philipipnes to keep
and or transfer records.
Sec. 21 – Publication
in the Official Gazette
– documents uploaded
on the website of the
77
Official Gazette will be
considered official
provided there is a
timestamp
publish and
disseminate a
People’s
Ownership of
Government
Information
Manual in
full, a
description of
its mandate,
structure, its
frontline
services,
SALNs of
public
officials, work
programs,
development
plans,
investment
plans,
projects,
important
rules and
regulations,
etc.
Sec. 9. Protection of
Privacy - While
providing for access
to information in
public records, this
Act also affords full
protection of the right
to privacy of
individuals.
Sec. 10. People's
Ownership of
Government
Information Manual.
- (A) For the effective
implementation of
this Act, all
government agencies
shall prepare a
78
People's Ownership
of Government
Information Manual
Sec. 16. Keeping of
Records. - (A)
Government agencies
shall create and/or
maintain in
appropriate formats,
accurate and
reasonably complete
documentation or
records of their
organization,
policies, transactions,
decisions,
resolutions,
enactments, actions,
procedures,
operations, activities,
communications and
documents received
or filed with them
and the data
generated or
collected…
Sec. 17. Publication
in the Official
Gazette. For purposes
of mandatory
disclosure as
provided in Section 8
of this Act, online
publication in the
Official Gazette
website shall be
considered official
publication provided
there shall be a
timestamp in the said
document.
Sec. 23.
Appropriations. - The
79
Liabilities
amount necessary to
carry out the
provisions of this Act
shall be charged
against the agencies'
current budget
Sec. 15 - Criminal
Sec. 12 Sec. 18.
Liability - The
Administrative Liability Administrative
penalty of
– gross neglect of duty Liability. - The acts
imprisonment of not
shall constitute grounds enumerated in this
less than six (6)
for administrative and
Section shall be
months but not more disciplinary sanction
tantamount to grave
than one (1) year,
against any public
administrative
with the accessory
official or employee
offenses and shall
penalty of suspension who wilfully and
constitute grounds for
from office for the
knowingly refuses to
administrative and
same duration, shall
promptly forward a
disciplinary sanction
be imposed upon:
request, fails to act on
against any public
(a) Any public the request within the
official or employee
officer or employee
given time periods,
who wilfully and
receiving the request claims an exception
knowingly commits
under Section 9of this under Sec. 7 when the
the following: (a)
Act who shall
claim is manifestly
Refusal to promptly
knowingly refuse or, devoid of factual or
forward the request
because of gross
legal basis, refuses to
under Section of this
negligence, fail to
comply with the
Act to the public
promptly forward the decision of his
officer within the
request to the public
immediate supervisor
same office or agency
officer responsible
ordering the release of
responsible for
for officially acting
information, approves
officially acting on
on the request when
policies, rules, and
the request when
such is the direct
regulations contrary to such is the direct
cause of the failure to the provisions of this
cause of the failure to
disclose the
Act
disclose the
information within
information within
the periods required
Sec. 13 – Criminal
the periods required
by this Act...
Liability – any public
by this Act; (b)
official who falsely
Failure to act on the
Sec. 16. Strict
denies or conceals the
request within the
CivilLiability. - In
existence of
periods required by
case a request for
information mandated
this Act; (c) Refusal
information is denied for disclosure under
to comply with the
and subsequently
this Act shall be liable
decision of his
reversed by final and for the crime of
immediate
executory judgment
removal, concealment, supervisor, the
of the Ombudsman or or destruction of
Ombudsman, or of
80
the courts, the
documents as defined
government agency
under Article 226 of
shall be liable to pay the Revised Penal Code
the
requester damages in
the amount of one
thousand pesos (P
1,000.00) per day
from the date of
notice of denial until
the date of
compliance with the
request, which
amount shall be
automatically
appropriated. The
public officer or
employee: and the
private individual
responsible for the
denial shall be
solitarily liable with
the government
agency, unless he can
prove that such denial
was made without
fault or negligence, or
was not done
arbitrarily or in
manifest bad faith.
The liability under
this section shall be
without prejudice to
actual, moral and
exemplary damages
that may be
adjudicated under the
law.
any court ordering
the release of
information;
(d) Approval of
policies, rules and
regulations clearly
contrary to the
provisions of this
Act, and which
policies, rules and
regulations are the
direct cause of the
denial of a request for
information.
SEC. 19. Criminal
Liability. - (A) Any
public official or
employee who falsely
denies or conceals the
existence of
information which is
a proper subject for
disclosure under this
Act shall be liable for
the crime of removal,
concealment or
destruction of
documents as defined
under Article 226 of
the Revised Penal
Code. (B) Any public
official or employee
who destroys, or
causes to be
destroyed,
information and/or
documents being
requested under this
Act, for the purpose
of frustrating the
requesting party's
access thereto, shall
be liable for the crime
of removal.
concealment or
81
destruction of
documents as defined
under Article 226 of
the Revised Penal
Code. (C) Any
individual who
knowingly directed,
induced or caused the
commission of the
foregoing acts shall
be liable as principal
by inducement in the
prosecution of public
officials or
employees under this
section.
(D) The penalty of
arresto mayor shall
be imposed upon any
public officer or
employee responsible
for officially acting
on the request, who
shall claim an
exception under
Section 7 of this Act,
or under the
Constitution, when
such claim is
manifestly devoid of
factual basis.
Action
taken
Killed
Killed
SEC. 21. Mere
Denial in Good Faith
Not a Ground for
Liability. - A mere
denial in good faith
of a request made
pursuant to the
provisions of this Act
shall not constitute
grounds for
administrative, civil
or criminal liability
Approved on third
reading
82
Table 9 is a summary of comments at the changes made by Malacanang in the
Tanada bill (HB 53), as released by the Right to Know, Right Now! (R2KRN) Coalition.
Malacanang released its first version of the FOI bill in May 3, 2011. R2KRN stated that a
lot of the provisions inserted by Malacanag have been lifted from the United States
version of the FOIA, and are ambiguous when applied in the Philippine setting. Further,
the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines said the Palace had even “expanded”
the list of exemptions from the FOI. Malacanang released another version of its bill in
February 3, 2012. After several consultations, the coalition and authors of the bill were
able to strike a compromise, and have come up with HB 6766.
Table 9. Comparison of Tanada bill and first Malacanang version
(Right to Know, Right Now Coalition, 2011)
Tanada Bill (HB 53)
Improvements
(basis)
Exception: National
security
The Tañada version
attempted to limit national
security to national
defense, in view of the
general tendency of
governments to give
national security an
Malacanang Issued Bill
(2011)
 The assistance to
persons who are
illiterate or with
disability
 The introduction of a
tracking system for
requests
 The expansion of the
information for
mandatory disclosure
The Malacañang version
inserted “national security”
in Section 7 (a)
83
overbroad scope and
meaning

Exception: Deliberative
process privilege
Burden of proof
Public interest override
Notice of denial
With burden of proof
With public interest
provision
Identification needed for
proper attribution of the act
Section 6 limited the
availability of the
right to information
only from when a
decision on
government policy
had been taken. It
contradicted the
constitutional
guarantee.
 The new exception
under Section 7 (d)
on inter-agency or
intra-agency
memoranda was
copied from
exception 5 of the US
FOIA, which is stated
in opaque language
 The new exception
under Section 7 (e)
on records of minutes
and advice and
opinion given during
decision-making or
policy formulation
was a more detailed
version of (d). It was
also copied from the
US FOIA.
Deleted burden of proof in
Section 5
Deleted public interest
provision in Section 9
 Deleted the
requirement of the
specification of the
name, rank, title or
position of the person
making the denial of
a request in Section
11
 Centralized
notification to an
84
Information Commission
Sanctions for violation of
right to information
In terms of legislative
history, early versions had
provisions for
an independent information
commission. However,
earlier Congresses resisted
the creation of any new
bodies in view of its fiscal
impact. Various alternative
existing institutions were
explored, and the best fit
was the Office of the
Ombudsman given its
broad Constitutional
powers and mandate.
“Information
Committee”
Removed recourse to the
Ombudsman and replaced it
with the Information
Commission, which wsn’t
independent, rather it was
attached to the Office of the
President
Removed the criminal
liability for the acts
identified under Section 18
of Tanada’s Bill
85
VI.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Summary
In the objectives of this study, the researchers aimed (1) to trace the history of the
FOI bill since it was first introduced in 1992, (2) to find out the various experiences that
the FOI bill went through under various administrations, and (3) to identify the factors
that have led to the non-passage of the FOI bill.
With regard to the first and second objectives, the researchers found that the
history of the FOI bill started with the filing of Sen. Alberto G. Romulo of the “Freedom
of Access to Information Act” in 1992. A number of similar bills have succeeded it in the
following congresses, which have not been given due attention by the media and the
lawmakers themselves. By the end of the 11th Congress, various civil society groups
decided to engage Congress in discussions on the bill, which resulted to the first FOI bill
drafted from a consultation effort. These civil society groups later formed the Access to
Information Network (ATIN) before expanding and being formally known as the Right to
Know, Right Now! (R2KRN) coalition. The coalition made sure the bill took off in the
12th and 13th Congresses, but the time was not ripe for the bill to go beyond second
reading. Things took an interesting turn during the 14th Congress, under the term of
former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who has been infamously involved in the
“Hello Garci” election scuffle. It was in this congress when a bill filed in the lower house
got its farthest, to its third and final reading, before it was killed due to several delays.
The bill was off to a promising start in the 15th Congress, with newly elected president
Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III pledging support for its passage. However, this support
proved to be lukewarm as the 15th Congress unfolded. Though the Senate swiftly passed
86
their version of the bill, the House of Representatives was conflicted between passing a
“genuine” version of the bill, delaying tactics, and arguments regarding Right of Reply.
With all these and other interruptions coming into account, the Freedom of Information
bill has perished in the 15th Congress, to be resurrected yet again.
As for the third objective, four factors have been identified namely, (1)
presidential support, (2) public clamour, (3) debates on the Right of Reply and finally (4)
the legislative body itself. The bill’s advocates understand that there is still a lot of room
for growth in the House, especially since many of the sitting representatives come from
political dynasties. According to Batario, because the congress is controlled by the elite,
it’s still difficult for them to share power in the form of an FOI law, especially if they
have been in power for centuries.
The coalition may have reached out to different sectors already but there may still
be a need for the “unaffiliated” to demand from their legislators the passage of the FOI.
With support from the interviews, the writers deemed, however, that the most
salient hindrance to the passage of an FOI bill is the distinct and aggressive resistance in
the House of Representatives. The lower house has been the bill’s greatest antagonist as
its members fear the consequences of a legislated call to transparency. This is most
evident in the way the bill has been destroyed in the 14th Congress; in the way it has been
deterred in the 15th, and in the House’s reflex to protect itself through the insertion of a
provision on Right of Reply.
Lingao added that what the FOI needs is a congress that is proactive and
progressive. “You're talking about a chamber of fence sitters who'd rather err on the side
87
of conservatism especially when it comes to divulging information about them,” he said.
“The best proof of that is the SALN. The senators have all released their SALNS, the
executive has released their SALN, congress, you could not get them to release their
SALNs. Not as a group, and not individually.”
Also, it can be therefore concluded that in the country’s political system, there is
an apparent over-reliance on the whims of the President. In an ideal democracy, the
executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government should function efficiently,
coequally, and independently, which cannot be held true for this government, as the
lower house clearly made apparent. The House has always been waiting for “a clear voice
from Olympus,” for the bill to be certified urgent, for the president to “crack the whip,”
in order to act swiftly on the passage of the FOI bill.
B. Recommendations
The researchers have a two-fold recommendation for the improvement of this
study and the furtherance of the bill: one addressed to their fellow students, and the other
to the civil society organizations engaged in the campaign for FOI.
1. For students
For those who plan to delve further into this topic, the researchers recommend
conducting more interviews with the original bill’s proponents to ascertain details such as
their motivations for filing the bill, and the differences in the bill’s reception in the
88
political atmosphere during the time it was filed. Despite the researchers’ persistence, the
bill’s oldest proponents have not been reached due to constraints in time and resources.
Another method would be to look into more newspapers to see how the media has given
attention to the bill, given that the bill’s institution establishes ease in the way they
acquire information. An investigative study can also be made on what the opponents of
the bill in the House might have in common, such as having unexplained wealth or
belonging to political dynasties, and why these commonalities give them reason to
actively oppose efforts in transparency.
The researchers also advise having a more unified effort in pushing for the bill
within their campus, since the UP Community, like the rest of the citizenry, would
benefit from an FOI bill. A number of student groups have already expressed their
concern for the passage of the FOI, holding dialogues and fora to engage students.
However, only politically-inclined organizations have been active in the bill’s campaign.
For the bill to be understood and fought for by more students in campus, and for the
drafting of a bill that would cater to the needs of more people, a solid, cohesive,
consultative body with a more diverse student composition must be formed. The
researchers also believe that as Centers of Excellence in Journalism and Communication
Research, the UP College of Mass Communication must take initiative in pushing for a
bill that affirms their watchdog role in society. As a premiere institution that champions
transparency and accountability, the college must participate in consultations, lobbying
efforts, and awareness campaigns on FOI.
89
2. For FOI proponents and civil society supporters
As for the proponents and supporters of the bill, both in and outside the
government, there is a need to improve the tactics in campaigning for the passage of the
FOI. The researchers agree with their interviewees that the concept of FOI must be easily
understood by the “common people,” those who are outside legislation, the academe, and
non-government organizations. Ordinary citizens must understand the importance and the
need of the FOI bill in their lives in order that they, too, can make it their own campaign.
With more citizens joining the campaign for its passage, then there are greater chances of
it being passed.
In their guide for civil society organizations, the United Nations suggested several
mechanisms to strengthen citizen participation, such as (1) Networking, or the forming of
‘policy watch groups’ for tracking legal and legislative developments, which has been
actualized through the R2KRN coalition; (2) Awareness Generation, or the promotion of
equity “by helping vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, including people living in
poverty and other low-income groups in using the Right to Information to realize their
rightful entitlements;” (3) Capacity building, or the development of program procedure
and implementation; and (4) the Effective use of the media – in bringing to light
substantiated reports on service delivery issues, and in perpetuating the message of the
need for an FOI in a democracy through the available and most effective media. (The
Right to Information Act: A Guide for Civil Society Organizations, 2005) Because of the
ubiquity of radio and television, and the growing number of people on the Internet, the
researchers suggest a more stringent advertising campaign on television, radio, and social
media.
90
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banisar, D. (2006). Freedominfo.org global survey: Freedom of information and access
to government records around the world. Freedom of information. Retrieved
February 1, 2013 from http://www.freedominfo.org/regions/europe/sweden/
Coronel, S. (Ed.). (2001). The right to know: Access to information in Southeast Asia.
Quezon city: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
Congress of the Philippines.
Daruwala, M. & Nayak, V. (Eds.). (2007). Our rights, our information: Empowering
people to demand rights through knowledge. New Delhi: Commonwealth Human
Rights Initiative.
De Jesus, M. (1996). Media and society: News media in a democracy. In De Jesus, M. &
Teodoro, L. (Eds.), The Filipino press and media, democracy and development.
Quezon city: University of the Philippines Press.
Dyer, A., Hayden, M., Lanctot, D. (n.d.). The Shannon and Weaver model defined.
Information Theory Presentation. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/lsc/Faculty/Carson/508/03Website/Hayden/ShanWeav.ht
ml
communicationtheory.org (2011). Shannon and Weaver model of communication.
Communication theory. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from
http://communicationtheory.org/shannon-and-weaver-model-of-communication/
Feliciano, G. (1968). The press and local government. In De Jesus, M. & Teodoro, L.
(Eds.), The Filipino press and media, democracy and development. Quezon city:
University of the Philippines Press.
Introduction, J. M. (n.d.). The World's First Freedom of Information Act
(Sweden/Finland 1766). Scribd. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5885744/The-Worlds-First-Freedom-of-InformationAct-SwedenFinland-1766
Iyer, V. (2001). Freedom of information: An Asian survey. Singapore: Asian Media
Information and Communication Centre.
La Viña, T. (n.d.). 8 lessons from the Corona impeachment trial. Rappler. Retrieved
September 18, 2012, from http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/6351-8-lessonsfrom-the-corona-impeachment-trial
91
legislationonline.org (n.d.). Sweden access to information and data protection.
Legislation Online. Retrieved February 1, 2013 from
http://legislationline.org/topics/country/1/topic/3
Mangahas, M. (2010). Secrets of Nograles could be exposed by FOI. GMA news online.
Retrieved March 23, 2013 from
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/192814/news/nation/secrets-of-nograleshouse-could-be-exposed-by-foi
Manifesto of Bantay FOI! Sulong FOI! Network | Institute for Freedom of Information.
(n.d.). Institute for Freedom of Information. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from
http://ifoi.ph/manifesto-of-bantay-foi-sulong-foi-network/
McQuail, D. (2002). McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory. London: Sage.
Mendel, T., & Unesco, N. D. (2008). Introduction. Freedom of information: a
comparative legal survey (2nd ed., p. 4). New Delhi: UNESCO.
ODS HOME PAGE. (n.d.). ODS HOME PAGE. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from
http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/033/10/IMG/NR003310.pdf?OpenEleme
nt
Panela, R. (2010). 14th congress kills FOI bill. In PJR Reports. Makati: Center for Media
Freedom and Responsibility.
Petaja, U. (2009). What is the value of freedom of speech? In Kierulf, A. & Ronning, H.
(Eds.), Freedom of speech abridged?: Cultural, legal and philosophical challenges.
Goteborg:
Nordicom.Peterson, T. (1956). Social responsibility theory of the press. In Siebert, S.,
Four theories of the press. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism.
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Opaque LGUs the norm in NCR.
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Retrieved September 18, 2012,
from http://pcij.org/stories/opaque-lgus-the-norm-in-ncr/
Raymundo, K. R. (2012, December 11). Foi: Foiled again. Retrieved from
http://www.cmfr-phil.org/2012/12/11/foi-foiled-again/
92
Right to Know, Right Now Coalition (2012, 5 September). Kill Bill take 2? FOI death by
inaction looms in Congress. National Union of Journalists of the Philippines.
Retrieved March 23, 2013 from http://www.nujp.org/2012/09/kill-bill-take-2-foideath-by-inaction-looms-in-congress/
Roberts, Alasdair S., A Great and Revolutionary Law? The First Four Years of India’s
Right to Information Act (January 9, 2010). Public Administration Review; Suffolk
University Law School Research Paper No. 10-02.
Roy, A. (2012, April 10). How the uk can learn from india's right to information act.
Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/10/india-freedom-ofinformation
Senate of the Philippines.
Teodoro, L. (n.d.). The press as the fourth estate.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (n.d.). Welcome to the United Nations: It's
Your World. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
University College London (n.d.). Sweden: International focus. UCL Constitution Unit:
School of Public Policy. Retrieved February 1, 2013 from
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/countries/sweden
Vleugels, R. (2011).Overview of all FOI laws. FRINGE SPECIAL, 0. Retrieved
September 19, 2012, from http://www.bigwobber.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/Fringe-Special-Overview-FOIA-oct-2011.pdf
CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session
}
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H. No. 3732
BY REPRESENTATIVES ANGARA, DEL MAR, VILLANUEVA, CRUZ-GONZALES,
ABAYA, TALIÑO-MENDOZA, TAÑADA, DE GUZMAN, GONZALES (A.),
OCAMPO, CASIÑO, PABLO, HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, COQUILLA, FUA,
TEODORO, CHATTO, MAZA, BELTRAN, ILAGAN, ABANTE, CODILLA,
DAZA, ALCALA, BIAZON, UMALI (A.), CUA (J.), UY (R.A.), DEL
ROSARIO, PINGOY, LAGMAN, OLAÑO, CAJAYON, JOSON, SOON-RUIZ,
GARAY, SANDOVAL, MANDANAS, HATAMAN, ABLAN, AGBAYANI,
AGGABAO, AGYAO, ALFELOR, ALMARIO, ALVAREZ (A.), AMATONG,
ANGPING, APOSTOL, AQUINO, ARAGO, ARENAS, ARNAIZ, ARROYO (D.),
ARROYO (I.), ASILO, BAGATSING, BALINDONG, BARZAGA, BINAY,
BIRON, BONDOC, BONOAN-DAVID, BRIONES, BULUT, CABILAO, CAGAS,
CASTELO DAZA, CASTRO, CAYETANO, CELESTE, CERILLES, CHIPECO,
CHONG, CLARETE, CLIMACO, COSCOLLUELA, CRISOLOGO, CUA (G.),
CUENCO, DATUMANONG, DEFENSOR (A.), DEFENSOR (M.), DIAZ,
DILANGALEN, DIMAPORO, DOMOGAN, DUAVIT, DUMARPA, DURANO,
DY, ENVERGA, ESCUDERO, ESTRELLA (C.), FABIAN, FERNANDEZ,
FERRER, FUENTEBELLA, GARCIA (A.), GARCIA (P.), GARCIA (V.),
GARIN, GATCHALIAN, GATLABAYAN, GO, GOLEZ, GONZALES (N.),
GONZALEZ, GULLAS, GUNIGUNDO, HOFER, JAAFAR, JALA, JAVIER,
JIKIRI, KHO, LACSON, LAGDAMEO, LAPUS, LIM, LOPEZ, MADRONA,
MAGSAYSAY, MAMBA, MANGUDADATU, MARAÑON, MARCOS,
MATUGAS, MERCADO, MITRA, NAVA, NICOLAS, NOEL, NOGRALES,
ONG, ORTEGA, PADILLA, PANCHO, PANCRUDO, PICHAY, PIÑOL, PLAZA,
PRIETO-TEODORO, PUNO, RAMIRO, REMULLA, REYES (V.), ROBES,
RODRIGUEZ,
RODRIGUEZ-ZALDARRIAGA,
ROMAN,
ROMARATE,
ROMUALDEZ, ROMULO, SALVACION, SANTIAGO (J.), SANTIAGO (N.),
SILVERIO, SINGSON (E.), SINGSON (R.), SUAREZ, SUSANO, SY-
2
LIMKAICHONG, TEVES, TIENG, TUPAS, UNGAB, UY (E.), UY (R.S.),
VARGAS, VELARDE, VILLAFUERTE, VILLAROSA, VINZONS-CHATO,
VIOLAGO, YAP, YU, ZAMORA (M.), ZAMORA (R.), ZIALCITA AND
ZUBIRI, PER COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 331
AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION
ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN GUARANTEED UNDER
SECTION TWENTY-EIGHT, ARTICLE II AND SECTION SEVEN,
ARTICLE III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Freedom of
Information Act of 2008”.
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State recognizes the right of the
people to information on matters of public concern, and adopts and implements
a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest,
subject to limitations provided by this Act. This right is indispensable to the
exercise of the right of the people and their organizations to effective and
reasonable participation at all levels of social, political and economic decisionmaking.
SEC. 3. Coverage. – This Act shall cover all government agencies as
defined in Section 4 of this Act.
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:
(a)
“Information” shall mean any knowledge, record, document,
paper, report, letters, contract, minutes and transcripts of
official meetings, maps, books, photographs, data, research
material, film, sound and video recordings, magnetic or other
tapes, electronic data processing records, computer stored
3
data, or any other like or similar data or material recorded,
stored or archived in whatever form or format, which are
made, received or kept in or under the control and custody of
any government agency pursuant to law, executive order, rules
and regulations, ordinance or in connection with the
performance or transaction of official business by any
government agency.
(b)
“Government agency” shall include the executive, legislative
and judicial branches as well as the constitutional bodies of the
Republic of the Philippines including, but not limited to, the
national government and all its agencies, departments,
bureaus,
offices
and
instrumentalities,
constitutional
commissions and constitutionally mandated bodies, local
governments and all their agencies, regulatory agencies,
chartered institutions, government-owned or -controlled
corporations,
government
financial
institutions,
state
universities and colleges, the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
the Philippine National Police, all offices in the Congress of
the Philippines including the offices of Senators and
Representatives, the Supreme Court and all lower courts
established by law.
(c)
“Official records” shall refer to information produced or
received by the public officer or employee, or by a government
agency in an official capacity or pursuant to a public function
or duty, and is not meant to be a stage or status of the
information.
4
(d)
“Public records” shall include information required by law to
be entered, kept and made publicly available by a government
agency such as, but not limited to, the:
(1) Office of the Civil Registry;
(2) National Statistics Office;
(3) Register of Deeds;
(4) Land Transportation Office;
(5) Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board;
(6) Securities and Exchange Commission;
(7) Intellectual Property Office; or
(8) Business Permits and Licenses Office and Assessor’s Office of the
various local government units.
SEC. 5. Presumption. – There shall be a legal presumption in favor of
access to information. Accordingly, government agencies shall have the burden
of proof of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the information
requested should not be disclosed.
SEC. 6. Access to Information. – Government agencies shall make
available to the public for scrutiny, copying and reproduction in the manner
provided by this Act, all information pertaining to official acts, transactions or
decisions, as well as government research data used as basis for policy
development, regardless of their physical form or format in which they are
contained and by whom they were made.
SEC. 7. Qualifications. – Even if the information falls under the
exceptions set forth in the succeeding section, access to information shall not
be denied if:
(a)
The information may be reasonably severed from the body of
the information which would be subject to the exceptions; or
5
(b)
The public interest in the disclosure outweighs the harm to
the interest sought to be protected by the exceptions.
SEC. 8. Exceptions. – Subject to the qualifications set forth in
Section 7: Provided, That the information is specifically designated and
described, and the facts and reasons for preserving the confidentiality are
precisely and specifically recited, and: Provided, further, That such
information shall be available to either House of Congress at all times, access
to information may be denied when:
(a)
The revelation of the information will create a clear and
present danger of war, invasion or any external threat to the
State as determined by the Office of the President and/or the
Secretary of the Department of National Defense: Provided,
That the Supreme Court may, upon complaint by any citizen,
inquire into the sufficiency of the factual basis for such
determination;
(b)
The information pertains to the foreign affairs of the
Republic of the Philippines, when its revelation would
unduly weaken the negotiating position of the government in
an ongoing bilateral or multilateral negotiation or seriously
jeopardize the diplomatic relations of the Philippines with
one or more states with which it intends to keep friendly
relations, except that such information must always be
accessible to either House of Congress;
(c)
The information pertains to internal and external defense and
law enforcement, when the revelation thereof would render a
legitimate military operation ineffective, unduly compromise
the prevention, detection or suppression of a criminal
activity, or endanger the life or physical safety of
6
confidential or protected sources or witnesses, law
enforcement and military personnel or their immediate
families. Information relating to the details of the
administration, budget and expenditure, and management of
the defense and law enforcement agencies shall always be
accessible to the public;
(d)
The information pertains to the personal information of a
third party natural person, unless it forms part of a public
record, or the third party is or was an official of a
government agency and the information relates to his or her
public function;
(e)
The information pertains to trade, industrial, financial or
commercial secrets of a third party natural or juridical
person, obtained in confidence by a government agency
whenever the revelation thereof would seriously prejudice
the interests of the third party in trade, industrial, financial or
commercial competition, unless the third party has consented
to the disclosure of the information;
(f)
The information is privileged from production in legal
proceedings by law or by the Rules of Court, unless the
person entitled to the privilege has waived it;
(g)
The information is exempted by statutes of Congress, in
addition to those provided in this section;
(h)
The information is obtained by any committee of either
House of Congress in executive session; and
(i)
Drafts of decisions of any executive, administrative, judicial
or quasi-judicial body in the exercise of their adjudicatory
functions are being requested.
7
SEC. 9. Procedure of Access. – (a) Any person who wishes to obtain
information shall submit a request to the government agency concerned, as
much as practicable in writing or through electronic means, reasonably
describing the information required, the reason for the request of the
information and the means by which the government agency shall
communicate such information to the requesting party.
(b) The request shall be stamped by the government agency, indicating
the date and time of receipt and the name, rank, title and position of the
receiving public officer or employee with the corresponding signature, and a
copy thereof furnished to the requesting party. In case the request is submitted
by electronic means, the government agency shall provide for an equivalent
means by which the requirements of this paragraph shall be met.
(c) The request may indicate the following preferred means of
communication:
(1) A true copy of the information in permanent or other form;
(2) An opportunity to inspect the information, using equipment
normally available to the government agency when necessary;
(3) An opportunity to copy the information using personal equipment;
(4) A written transcript of the information contained in a sound or
visual form;
(5) A transcript of the content of an information, in print, sound or
visual form, where such transcript is capable of being produced
using equipment normally available to the government agency; or
(6) A transcript of the information from shorthand or codified form.
(d) A government agency may communicate information in a form
other than the preferred means whenever such preferred means would
unreasonably interfere with the effective operation of the agency, or be
detrimental to the preservation of the record.
8
(e) The government agency shall comply with such request within ten
(10) calendar days from the receipt thereof.
(f) The time limits prescribed in this section may be extended during
unusual circumstances where, in the production of the requested information,
there is a need:
(1)
To search for and collect the requested information from
field facilities or other establishments that are separate from
the office processing the request;
(2)
To search for, collect and appropriately examine a
voluminous amount of separate and distinct information
which are demanded in a single request;
(3)
For consultation, which shall be conducted in all practicable
speed, with another government agency or among two (2) or
more components of the government agency having
substantial interest in the determination of the request; and
(4)
To consider fortuitous events or other events due to force
majeure or other analogous cases.
(g) The government agency shall, in writing or through electronic
means, notify the person making the request of the extension, setting forth the
reasons for such extension and the date when the information shall be made
available: Provided, That no such notice shall specify a date that would result
in an extension of more than fifteen (15) calendar days.
SEC. 10. Access Fees. – Government agencies may charge a reasonable
fee to reimburse the cost of searching, reproduction, copying or transcription
and the communication of the information requested.
SEC. 11. Notice of Denial. – If the government agency decides to deny
the request, in whole or in part, it shall, within ten (10) calendar days from the
receipt of the request, notify the person making the request of such denial in
9
writing or through electronic means. The notice shall clearly indicate the name,
rank, title or position of the person making the denial, and the grounds for the
denial. In case the denial is by reason of a claimed exception, the denial shall
also state clearly the legitimate aim or interest sought to be protected in the
confidentiality, and the facts and circumstances invoked showing the
substantial harm to, or frustration of, the legitimate aim or interest that will
result in the disclosure of the information. Failure to notify the person making
the request of the denial, or of the extension, shall be deemed a denial of the
request for access to information.
SEC. 12. Remedies in Cases of Denial. – (a) In the executive and
legislative branches and the constitutional bodies –
(1)
Every denial of any request for access to information may be
appealed to the person or office next higher in authority,
following the procedure provided in the guidelines as
required by Section 17 of this Act: Provided, That the appeal
must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days from the
notice of denial and must be decided within fifteen (15)
calendar days from filing. Failure of the government agency
to decide within the aforestated period shall constitute a
denial of the appeal; and
(2)
Instead of appealing or after the denial of the appeal, the
person denied access to information may, within fifteen (15)
calendar days from the original denial or denial of the
appeal, file a verified complaint with the Office of the
Ombudsman, praying that the government agency concerned
be directed to immediately afford access to the information
being requested. Such complaint shall be resolved by the
Office of the Ombudsman within sixty (60) calendar days
10
from filing or earlier, when time is of the essence, taking into
account such factors as the nature of the information
requested, context of the request, public interest and danger
that the information requested will become moot.
(b) In the Judicial Branch – The Supreme Court shall promulgate the
remedies that would govern offices under its jurisdiction.
(c)
The remedies under this section are without prejudice to any
other administrative, civil or criminal action covering the
same act.
(d)
The remedies available under this Act shall be exempt from
the rules on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and
the application of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9285,
otherwise known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act
of 2004.
(e)
The Office of the Ombudsman shall promulgate its rules of
procedure to effect the purposes of this Act.
(f)
Unless restrained or enjoined, the decisions of the Office of
the Ombudsman shall be immediately executory, without
prejudice to review in accordance with the Rules of Court.
(g)
In case the requester has limited or no financial capacity, the
Public Attorney’s Office shall be mandated to provide legal
assistance to the requester in availing of the remedies
provided under this Act.
SEC. 13. Mandatory Disclosure of Transactions Involving Public
Interest. – Subject to Sections 7 and 8 of this Act, all government agencies
shall post on their bulletin boards and upload on their websites all the steps,
negotiations and key government positions pertaining to definite propositions
11
of the government, as well as the contents of the contract, agreement or treaty
in the following transactions involving public interest:
(a)
Compromise agreements entered into by a government
agency with any person or entity involving any waiver or its
rights or claims;
(b)
Private sector participation agreements or contracts in
infrastructure and development projects under Republic Act
No. 6957, as amended by Republic Act No. 7718,
authorizing the financing, construction, operation and
maintenance of infrastructure projects;
(c)
Procurement contracts entered into by a government agency;
(d)
Construction or concession agreements or contracts entered
into by a government agency with any domestic or foreign
person or entity;
(e)
Loans, grants, development assistance, technical assistance
and programs entered into by a government agency with
official bilateral or multilateral agencies, as well as with
private aid agencies or institutions;
(f)
Loans from domestic and foreign financial institutions;
(g)
Guarantees given by any government agency to governmentowned or
-controlled corporations and to private
corporations, persons or entities;
(h)
Public funding extended to any private entity;
(i)
Bilateral or multilateral agreements and treaties in defense,
trade, economic partnership, investments, cooperation and
similar binding commitments; or
12
(j)
Licenses, permits or agreements given by any government
agency to any person or entity for the extraction and/or
utilization of natural resources.
SEC. 14. Promotion of Openness in Government. – (a) Duty to Publish
Information – Government agencies shall regularly publish and disseminate, at
no cost to the public and in an accessible form, by print and through their
website, timely, true, accurate and updated key information including, but not
limited to:
(1) A description of its structure, powers, functions, duties and
decision-making processes;
(2) A description of the frontline services it delivers and the procedure
and length of time by which they may be availed of;
(3) Work programs, development plans, investment plans, projects,
performance targets and accomplishments, and budgets, revenue
allotments and expenditures;
(4) Important rules and regulations, orders or decisions;
(5) Current and important database and statistics that it generates;
(6) Bidding processes and requirements;
(7) Mechanisms or procedures by which the public may participate in
or otherwise influence the formulation of policy or the exercise of
its powers; and
(8) A guide on accessing information containing adequate information
about its record-keeping system, the types of information it holds
and/or publishes, the procedure for obtaining access by the public
to such information, the person or office responsible for receiving
the request and routing it to the person or office with the duty to act
on the request, the standard forms and procedure for request, and
the schedule of access fees.
13
(b) Keeping of Records – Government agencies shall maintain and
preserve their records in a manner that facilitates easy identification, retrieval
and communication to the public. They shall establish Management
Information Systems (MIS) to strengthen their capability to store, manage and
retrieve records, and to facilitate access to public records. The following shall
not be destroyed:
(1) Records pertaining to loans obtained or guaranteed by the
government;
(2) Records of government contracts;
(3) The declaration under oath of the assets, liabilities and networth of
public officers and employees, as required by law;
(4) Records of official investigations on graft and corrupt practices of
public officers; and
(5) Other records where there is a significant public interest in their
preservation or where there is likely to be such interest in the
future.
(c) Accessibility of Language and Form – Every government agency
shall endeavor to translate key information into major Filipino
languages and present them in popular form and means.
(d) Improving Capability – Every government agency shall ensure the
provision of adequate training for its officials to improve awareness of the right
to information and the provisions of this Act, and to keep updated of best
practices in relation to information disclosure, records maintenance and
archiving.
SEC. 15. Criminal Liability. – The penalty of imprisonment of not less
than six (6) months but not more than one (1) year, with the accessory penalty
of suspension from office for the same duration, shall be imposed upon:
14
(a)
Any public officer or employee receiving the request under
Section 9 of this Act who shall knowingly refuse or, because
of gross negligence, fail to promptly forward the request to
the public officer responsible for officially acting on the
request when such is the direct cause of the failure to
disclose the information within the periods required by this
Act;
(b)
Any public officer or employee responsible for officially
acting on the request, who shall:
(1) Knowingly refuse or, because of gross negligence, fail to act on the
request within the periods required by this Act;
(2) Knowingly deny the existence of existing information;
(3) Deliberately destroy information being requested for the purpose of
frustrating the requester’s access thereto;
(4) Claim an exception under Section 8 of this Act, when the claim is
manifestly devoid of factual basis; or
(5) Refuse to comply with the decision of his immediate supervisor, the
Ombudsman or the court ordering the release of information that is not
restrained or enjoined by a court;
(c)
The head of office of the government agency directly and
principally responsible for the negotiation and perfection of
any of the transactions enumerated in Section 13 of this Act,
who shall knowingly refuse or, because of negligence, fails
to direct the mandatory posting or uploading of such
transaction. The same penalty shall be imposed upon the
public officer or employee who, despite a directive from the
head of office, shall knowingly refuse or, because of
15
negligence, fails to post or upload any of the transactions
enumerated in Section 14 of this Act;
(d)
Any public officer or employee who shall destroy, or cause
to destroy, records of information covered by Section 14(b)
of this Act;
(e)
Any public officer who intentionally formulates policies,
rules and regulations manifestly contrary to the provisions of
this Act, and which policies, rules and regulations are the
direct cause of the denial of a request for information; or
(f)
Any public or private individual who knowingly induced or
caused the commission of the foregoing acts under this
section.
SEC. 16. Strict Civil Liability. – In case a request for information is
denied and subsequently reversed by final and executory judgment of the
Ombudsman or the courts, the government agency shall be liable to pay the
requester damages in the amount of One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) per day
from the date of notice of denial until the date of compliance with the request,
which amount shall be automatically appropriated. The public officer or
employee and the private individual responsible for the denial shall be
solidarily liable with the government agency, unless he can prove that such
denial was made without fault or negligence, or was not done arbitrarily or in
manifest bad faith. The liability under this section shall be without prejudice to
actual, moral and exemplary damages that may be adjudicated under the law.
SEC. 17. Guidelines. – (a) For the full implementation of this Act
within the executive branch of the government, the Office of the Press
Secretary, particularly the Philippine Information Agency, shall, through a
consultative process, promulgate within six (6) months from the passage of this
Act, the general guidelines to which the government agencies controlled,
16
supervised or situated under the Office of the President, and shall adhere in the
establishment of their specific guidelines for access to information, which shall
include:
(1)
The location of the head, regional, provincial or field offices,
or other established places where the public can obtain
information or submit requests therefor;
(2)
The types of information it holds and/or publishes;
(3)
The person or office responsible for receiving the request
and for routing it to the person or office with the duty to act
on the request, and the standard forms and procedures for the
request;
(4)
The procedure for the administrative appeal of any denial for
access to information; and
(5)
The schedule of fees which shall be limited to the reasonable
and standard charges for document search and reproduction,
and the recovery of the direct costs thereof.
Each of the abovementioned government agency, office and
instrumentality shall submit to the Philippine Information Agency a copy of its
guidelines for review to ensure the standardization of the procedure and the
uniformity of fees, without prejudice to the right of the different agencies,
offices and instrumentalities to adopt appropriate procedures for their unique
functions and responsibilities.
(b) The legislative and judicial branches and the constitutional bodies
shall promulgate their own guidelines that would govern offices under their
respective jurisdictions. The Secretary of the Senate, the House of
Representatives’ Secretary General, the head of the Supreme Court Public
Information Office and the public information officers of the constitutional
17
bodies shall be responsible in furnishing copies of their respective guidelines
to the Philippine Information Agency.
(c) The Office of the Ombudsman shall likewise promulgate its special
rules of procedure for the immediate disposition of complaints filed pursuant
to Section 12 of this Act.
In no case shall the absence of the aforementioned guidelines be a
reason for the denial of any request for information made in accordance with
this Act.
SEC. 18. Act Not a Bar to Claim of Right to Information Under the
Constitution. – No provision of this Act shall be interpreted as a bar to any
claim of denial of the right to information under Article III, Section 7 of the
1987 Constitution.
SEC. 19. Separability Clause. – If, for any reason, any section or
provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, no other section or
provision shall be affected.
SEC. 20. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules
and regulations, issuances or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act, including Memorandum Circular No. 78 dated 14 August 1964
(Promulgating Rules Governing Security of Classified Matter in Government
Offices), as amended, and Section 3, Rule IV of the Rules Implementing
Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees), are deemed repealed.
SEC. 21. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after
its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,
O
~'n,';
·i "
,/,
FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE )
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
Second Regular Session
)
'I!
':):~H,~,(I:,
1111Y:n
:
.>,
11t'!;lfQ
n ':i
:J;:
SENATE
S. No.
3208
(In substitution of Senate Bill Nos. 11,25,126,149,158,162,1254,1440,1773,2086.
2189,2283,2354, and 3183)
Prepared by the Committees on Public Information and Mass Media, Civil Service and
Government Reorganization and Finance with Senators Trillanes, Revilla, Jr., Osmena
III, Pangilinan, Guingona III, Committee on Rules, Villar, Legarda, Santiago, Escudero.
Honasan II, Cayetano (A.) and Drilon as authors thereof.
1
2
AN ACT
FORTIFYING THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP OVER INFORMATION HELD
BY THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT
3
4
5
6
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines
Congress assembled:
III
7
8
SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "People's
9
10
Ownership of Government Information (POGI) Act of 2012."
11
12
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - Pursuant to the First Principle declared in Our
13
Constitution that Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authonty
14
emanates from them, the right of the people to effective and reasonable participation at
15
all levels of social, political and economic decision making, the right of the people to
16
information on matters of public concern, and the policy of full public disclosure of all
17
government transactions involving public interest, it is hereby declared that All
18
Government Information is Owned by the People and that public access to all
19
government information, as a general rule, serves the public interest and exceptional
20
instances restricting access thereto, as provided herein, shall only be allowed also by
21
reason of public interest.
22
3. Coverage - This Act shall cover all branches, departments, and
23
SEC.
24
instrumentalities of government, including all local government units, collectively
25
referred to as government agencies defined under Section 4 of this Act, .
26
27
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:
1
(A) "Information" shall mean any record, document, paper, report, letters, contract,
2
minutes and transcripts of official meetings, maps, books, photographs, data, research
3
material, film, sound and video recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data.
4
computer stored data, or any other like or similar data or material recorded, stored or
5
archived in whatever form or format, which are made, received or kept in or under the
6
control and custody of any government agency pursuant to law, executive order, rules
7
and regulations, ordinance or in connection with the performance or transaction of
8
official business by any government agency.
9
10
(S) "Government agency/agencies" shall include the executive, legislative and judicial
11
branches as well as constitutional bodies of the Republic of the Philippines including,
12
but not limited to, the national government and all its agencies, departments, bureaus.
13
offices and instrumentalities, constitutional commissions and constitutionally mandated
14
bodies, local governments and all their agencies, regulatory agencies, chartered
15
institutions, government-owned or controlled corporations, including wholly-owned or
16
controlled subsidiaries, government financial institutions, state universities and colleges,
17
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police, all offices in the
18
Congress of the Philippines including the offices of Senators and Representatives, the
19
Supreme Court and all lower courts established by law.
20
21
(C) "Official record/records" shall refer to information produced or received by a public
22
officer or employee, or by a government agency in an official capacity or pursuant to a
23
public function or duty, regardless of whether the information is in the draft, final, or any
24
other stage or status.
25
26
(0) "Public record/records" shall include information required by law, executive orders,
27
rules, or regulations to be entered, kept and made publicly available by a government
28
agency.
29
30
SEC. 5. Access to Information. - Every Filipino citizen has a right to and shall, on
31
request, be given access to any record under the control of a government agency
32
Government agencies shall make available to the public for scrutiny, copying and
33
reproduction in the manner provided by this Act, all information pertaining to official
34
acts, transactions or deciSions, as well as government research data used as a basis for
35
policy development, subject to the exceptions enumerated under section 7 of this Act,
36
regardless of their physical form or format in which they are contained and by whom
37
they were made.
9
SEC. 6. Presumption. - There shall be a legal presumption in favor of access to
2
information. No request for information shall be denied unless it clearly falls under the
3
exceptions provided under this Act.
4
5
SEC. 7. Exceptions. - Access to information shall be granted unless:
6
7
(A) The information is specifically authorized to be kept secret under guidelines
8
established by an executive order, and in fact properly classified pursuant thereto:
9
Provided, That 1) The information directly relates to national security or defense and Its
10
revelation may cause grave damage to the national security or internal and external
11
defense of the State; or 2) The information requested pertains to the foreign affairs of
12
the Republic of the Philippines, when its revelation may weaken the negotiating position
13
of the government in an ongoing bilateral or multilateral negoti<;ltion or seriously.!
14
jeopardize the diplomatic relations of the Philippines with any state; Provided, further,
15
That the executive order shall specify the reasonable period after which the information
16
shall be automatically declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review, and
17
that any reasonable doubt as to classification and declassification shall be settled In
18
favor of the right to information;
19
20
(6) The information consist of records of minutes, records of advice given or records of
21
opinions expressed during decision-making or policy formulation, invoked by the Chief
22
Executive to be privileged by reason of the sensitivity of the subject matter or by reason
23
of the impairment of the Chief Executive's deliberative process that would result from
24
the disclosure thereof. Once policy has been formulated and decisions made, minutes
25
and research data may be made available for disclosure unless they were made in
26
executive session.
27
28
(C) The information requested pertains to internal and/or external defense, law
29
enforcement, and border control, when the disclosure thereof may:
30
31
32
(i) compromise or interfere with any legitimate military or law enforcement
operation, or
33
34
(ii) compromise or interfere with the legitimate prevention, detection or
35
suppression of criminal activity, or the legitimate implementation of immigration controls
36
and border security, or
37
38
(iii) lead to the disclosure of the identity of a confidential source, including a
government, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished
2
information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled
3
by a law enforcement authority in the course of an investigation or by an agency
4
conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by
5
a confidential source, or
6
7
(iv) disclose legitimate techniques and procedures for law enforcement
8
investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose legitimate guidelines for law
9
enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be
10
expected to risk circumvention of the law, or
II
12
(v) endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
13
14
15
(D) The information requested consists of drafts of orders, resolutions, decisions,
16
memoranda or audit reports by any executive, administrative, regulatory, constitutional.
17
judicial or quasi-judicial body in the exercise of their regulatory, audit and adjudicatory
18
function.
19
20
(E) The information requested is obtained by either House of Congress, or any
21
committee thereof, in executive session.
22
23
(F) The information requested pertains to the personal information of a natural person
24
other than the requesting party, and its disclosure would constitute an unwarranted
25
invasion of his or her personal privacy, unless it forms part of a public record, or the
26
person is or was an official of a government agency and the information relates to his or
27
her public function or the person has consented, in writing, to the disclosure of the
28
information;
29
30
(G) The information requested pertains to trade secrets and commercial or financial
31
information obtained from a natural or juridical person other than the requesting party,
32
obtained in confidence or covered by privileged communication, and/or filed with a
33
government agency, whenever the revelation thereof would prejudice the interests of
34
such natural or juridical person in trade, industrial, financial or commercial competition
35
36
(H) The information is classified as privileged communications in legal proceedings by
37
law or by the Rules of Court.
"
(I) The information requested is exempted from disclosure by law or by the Constitution,
2
in addition to those provided in this section,
3
4
(J) The information has already been made accessible as provided in Section 13 of this
5
Act.
6
0) of this section, the determination whether any of these grounds shall
7
For letters (c) to
8
apply shall be the responsibility of the head of office of the government agency In
9
custody or control of the information, or any responsible central or field officerls duly
10
designated by him: Provided, That:
11
(1) The exceptions are strictly construed;
12
(2) The exceptions are not used to cover-up a crime, wrong-doing, graft, or corruption:
13
(3) The President, the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and
14
the Constitutional Commissions may waive an exception with respect to information in
15
the custody of offices under their respective supervision or control, when they deem that
16
there is an overriding public interest in disclosure;
17
18
(4) The exceptions do not constitute authority to withhold information from Congress nor
19
authority for the executive branch of a local government unit to withhold information
20
from the legislative body of such local government unit;
21
(5) Whenever the information requested is part of a record, whose other parts are
22
covered by an exception, but may be reasonably severed from a record, the responding
23
official shall either sever the information not covered by the exception and
24
communicated it to the requester, or he shall edit the exempt information and render It
25
suitable for public disclosure and release the record to the requester with a specific
26
identification of the parts which were edited; and
27
(6) Even if the information requested falls under the exceptions set forth in this Section,
28
access to information shall not be denied if public interest in the disclosure of the
29
information outweighs public interest in securing its confidentiality,
30
31
SEC. 8. Mandatory Disclosure of Information. - Government agencies are mandated
32
to regularly disclose the following information in the duration and manner provided
33
hereunder:
34
35
(A) In fulfillment of Article XI, Section 17 of the Constitution, the following national
36
officials shall disclose to the public, through their official website, their Statement of
37
Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALN) on an annual basis:
38
(1) the President;
1
(2) the Vice- President;
2
(3) the Members of the Cabinet;
3
(4) the Members of Congress;
4
(5) the Justices of Supreme Court;
5
(6) the Members of Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional
6
7
offices; and
(7) officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank.
8
9
(B) All agencies of all branches of government shall upload on their websites.
10
which shall be updated monthly, a register of the following public interest transactions,
11
documents or records, including:
12
13
(1) Annual Budget of Government Agencies;
14
(2) Itemized Monthly Collections and Disbursement;
15
(3) Summary of Income and Expenditures;
16
(4) Component of the IRA Utilization;
17
(5) Annual Procurement Plan and Procurement List;
18
(6) Items to Bid;
19
20
(7) Bid Results on Civil Works, and Goods and Services;
21
(8) Abstract of Bids as Calculated;
22
(9) Procurement contracts entered into by a government agency;
23
(10) Construction or concession agreements or contracts entered into by a
24
government agency with any domestic or foreign person or entity;
25
(11) Private sector participation agreements or contracts in infrastructure
26
and development projects under Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by
27
Republic Act No. 7718, authorizing the financing, construction, operation
28
and maintenance of infrastructure projects;
29
(12) Public funding extended to any private entity;
30
(13) Bilateral or multilateral agreements and treaties in trade, economic
31
partnership, investments, cooperation and similar binding commitments;
32
(14) Licenses, permits or agreements granted by any government agency
33
to any person or entity for the extraction and/or utilization of natural
34
resources and a list of the grantees;
35
(15) Guarantees given by any government agency to government-owned
36
or -controlled corporations and to private corporations, persons or entities;
37
(16) Loans from domestic and foreign financial institutions;
38
(17) Loans, grants, development assistance, technical assistance, and
,!
programs entered into by a government agency with official bilateral or
2
multilateral agencies, as well as with private aid agencies or institutions.
3
and
4
(18) Compromise agreements entered into by a government agency with
5
any person or entity.
6
7
The register shall contain a brief description of the transaction involved, including, but
8
not limited to: the nature and object of the transaction, the parties and amounts
9
involved, the key steps undertaken towards its conclusion, and the relevant dates
10
provided that contracts and agreements involving an amount of at least fifty millioll
11
pesos (P50, 000,000.00) shall be uploaded in full on the website of the concerned
12
government agency or the Official Gazette Online. A covered record shall be enrolled In
13
the register not later than 30 working days from its perfection or issuance.
14
15
(C) Each government agency shall regularly publish, print and disseminate at no
16
cost to the public and in an accessible form, in conjunction with Republic Act 9485, or
17
the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, and through their website, timely, true, accurate alld
18
updated key information including, but not limited to:
19
20
(1) A People's Ownership of Government Information Manual in full;
21
(2) A description of its mandate, structure, powers, functions, duties and
22
decision-making processes;
23
(3) A description of the frontline services it delivers and the procedure and length
24
of time by which they may be availed of;
25
(4) The names of its key officials, their powers, functions and responsibilities, and
26
their profiles and curriculum vitae;
27
(5) The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the public officers of the
28
government agency;
29
(6) Work programs, development plans, investment plans, projects, performance
30
targets
31
expenditures;
32
(7) Important rules and regulations, orders or decisions: Provided, That they be
33
published within fifteen (15) calendar days from promulgation;
34
(8) Rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which
35
forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all
36
papers, reports, or examinations;
37
(9) Substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and
38
statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated
and
accomplishments,
and
budgets,
revenue
allotments
and
7
and adopted by the agency, including subsequent amendments;
2
(10) Current and important database and statistics that it generates;
3
(11) Bidding processes and requirements; and
4
(12) Mechanisms or procedures by which the public may participate in or
5
otherwise influence the formulation of policy or the exercise of its powers.
6
7
All government agencies shall over time endeavor and build the capacity and practice to
8
upload in full all other contracts, agreements, or treaties covered under this section.
9
specially those that are of the highest public interest by reason of the amounts involved
10
and the impact of the transaction to the public. All government agencies must ensure
11
that they have a compliant website within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act.
!
12
13
Should an agency lack the capacity to comply with the website uploading requirement of
14
this section, the agency shall initiate a capacity-building program, coordinate with
15
another appropriate agency, or use an alternative mechanism, to facilitate substantive
16
compliance not later than three (3) years from the effectivity of this Act. The National
17
Computer Center shall monitor all government agency websites and render the
18
appropriate support for their development and full compliance with the requirements oi
19
this Act.
20
21
For purposes of improving capability, every government agency shall ensure the
22
provision of adequate training for its officials to improve awareness of the people's
23
ownership of government information and the provisions of this Act, and to keep
24
updated as to best practices in relation to information disclosure, records maintenance
25
and archiving.
26
27
28
In order to develop accessibility of language and form, every government agency shall
29
endeavor to translate key information into major Filipino languages and present them
30
popular form and means.
In
31
32
SEC. 9. Protection of Privacy - While providing for access to information in publiC
33
records, this Act also affords full protection of the right to privacy of individuals, as
34
follows:
!
35
36
(a) A government agency must ensure that personal information in its custody or under
37
its control is disclosed only as permitted under this Act;
38
(b) A government agency must protect personal information in its custody or under Its
control by making reasonable security arrangements against such risks as unauthorized
2
access, collection, use, disclosure, or disposal;
3
4
(c) An employee, officer or director of a government agency who has access, whether
5
authorized or unauthorized, to personal information in the custody of the agency, must
6
not disclose that information except as authorized under this Act.
7
8
SEC. 10. People's Ownership of Government Information Manual. - (A) For the
9
effective implementation of this Act, all government agencies shall prepare a People's
10
Ownership of Government Information Manual, setting forth the following:
II
12
(1) The location and contact information of the head, regional, provincial and field
13
offices, and other established places where the public can obtain government
14
information or submit requests;
15
(2) The types of information it generates, produces, holds and/or publishes;
16
(3) A description of its record-keeping system;
17
(4) The person or office responsible for receiving requests for information;
18
(5) The procedure for the filing of requests personally, by mail, or through the
19
identified electronic means;
20
(6) The standard forms for the submission of request and for the proper
21
acknowledgment of the request;
22
(7) The process for the disposition of the request, including the routing of the
23
request to the person or office with the duty to act on the request, the decision-
24
making process, and the grant or denial of access and its implementation;
25
(8) The procedure for the administrative appeal of any denial for access to
26
information;
27
(9) The schedule of fees;
28
(10) The process and procedure for the mandatory disclosure of information
29
under Section 8 of this Act: Provided, That should the agency lack the capacity
30
to fully comply therewith, a brief description of its plan to facilitate compliance
31
within three (3) years from the approval of this Act; and
32
(11) Such other information, taking into consideration the unique characteristics
33
of an agency, that will help facilitate the effective implementation of this Act.
34
35
(b) The foregoing information shall also be posted in its website and bulletin boards, and
36
shall be regularly updated;
37
38
(c) In no case shall the absence of the aforementioned Manual be a reason for the
denial of any request for information made in accordance with this Act.
2
3
(d) The heads of each of the departments and agencies may designate liaison units or
4
Committees who shall coordinate with the other units of the agency in implementing this
5
Act. The composition, functions and duties of these liaison units or Committees shall be
6
included in the People's Ownership of Government Information Manual.
7
8
SEC. 11. Procedure of Access. - (A) Any person who wishes to obtain information
9
shall submit, free of charge, a request to the government agency concerned personally,
10
by mail, or through electronic means. A person who is unable, because of illiteracy or
II
due to being a person with disability, to make a written request for information may
12
make an oral request, and the public official who receives the oral request shall reduce
13
it to writing, and include his name and position within the government agency, and give
14
a copy thereof to the person who made the request. The request shall state the name
15
and preferred contact information of the requesting party, and reasonably describe the
16
information required, the reason for the request of the information and the preferred
17
means by which the government agency shall communicate such information to the
18
requesting party: Provided, That the stated reason shall not be used as a ground to
19
deny the request or to refuse the acceptance of the request, unless such reason
20
contrary to law. If the request is submitted personally, the requesting party shall show
21
his current identification card issued by any government agency, or government or
22
private employer or school, or a community tax certificate. If the request is submitted by
23
mail or through electronic means, the requesting party may submit a photostatic or
24
electronically scanned copy of the identification, or other convenient means as
25
determined by the agency.
~
IS
26
27
(8) The public official receiving the request shall provide reasonable assistance, free of
28
charge, to enable all requesters and particularly those with special needs, to comply
29
with the request requirements under this section.
30
31
(C) The request shall be stamped by the government agency, indicating the date and
32
time of receipt and the name, rank, title and position of the receiving public officer or
33
employee with the corresponding Signature, and a copy thereof furnished to the
34
requesting party. In case the request is submitted by electronic means, the government
35
agency shall provide for an equivalent means by which the requirements of thiS
36
paragraph shall be met. Each government agency shall establish a system to trace the
37
status of all requests for information received by it.
38
(D) The request may indicate the requesting party's preferred mode and means of
!
\11
1
receiving the information requested, provided that the mode and means are reasonable.
2
taking into consideration equipment normally available to the concerned government
3
agency.
4
5
(E) A government agency may communicate the information requested in a form other
6
than the preferred means whenever the agency has no capability in communicating the
7
information in the preferred format, or such preferred means would unreasonably
8
interfere with the effective operation of the agency or be detrimental to the preservation
9
of the record.
10
11
(F) The government agency shall comply with such request as soon as practicable, and
12
in any case within fifteen (15) working days from the receipt thereof. The period may be
13
extended whenever the information requested requires a search of the government
14
agency's field or satellite offices, examination of voluminous records, the occurrence of
15
fortuitous events or other analogous cases.
16
17
(G) The government agency shall, in writing or through electronic means, notify the
18
person making the request of the extension, setting forth the reasons for such extension
19
and the date when the information shall be made available, which in no case shall result
20
in an extension of more than twenty (20) working days.
21
22
23
(H) Once a decision is made to grant the request, the person making the request shall
be notified of such and shall pay the required access and processing fees.
24
25
If the information is not held by the government agency to which the request was made,
26
it shall notify the requester that it does not hold the information, and indicate to the
27
requester which agency holds the record, if known. Whenever practicable, the agency
28
receiving the request may also cause the transfer of the request to the appropnate
29
agency that holds the information: Provided, That the period to comply with the request
30
under this section Shall begin to run only upon the receipt of the agency to which the
31
request is transferred.
32
33
SEC. 12. Access and Processing Fees. - Government agencies may charge a
34
reasonable fee to reimburse the actual cost of reproduction, copying or transcription and
35
the communication of the information requested. An agency may waive the fees
36
whenever it is satisfied that the requester is an indigent, or that the cost of reproduction
37
is negligible, or that it is pursuant to a program for proactive disclosure.
11
Ii
',;
SEC. 13. Exemption From Compliance. - The government agency is excused from
2
complying with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from the same
3
requesting party where it has previously complied with a request for information unless
4
a reasonable interval has lapsed between compliance with the previous request and the
5
making of the current request: Provided, That the government agency complies with
6
Section 14 of this Act.
7
8
SEC. 14. Notice of Denial. - (A) If the government agency decides to deny the request.
9
in whole or in part, it shall, as soon as practicable, and in any case within fifteen (15)
10
working days from the receipt of the request, notify the person making the request of
11
such denial in writing or through electronic means. The notice shall clearly set forth the
12
ground or grounds for denial and the circumstances on which the denial is based, and
13
indicate available rights of reconsideration or appeal. Failure to notify the person making
14
the request of the denial, or of the extension, shall be deemed a denial of the request
15
for access to information.
16
17
SEC. 15. Remedies in Cases of Denial. - (A) In all government agencies other
18
the judicial branch:
19
20
(1) Every denial of a request for access to information may be contested by a Request
21
for Administrative Reconsideration to the same responsible official who originally denied
22
the request or by an Administrative appeal to the Head of Agency, following the
23
procedure mentioned in Section 10 (a) (8) and Section 14 of this Act: Provided, That
24
the appeal must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days from the receipt of the notice
25
of denial and must be decided within fifteen (15) calendar days from filing. Failure to
26
resolve the appeal within the aforementioned period shall constitute a denial of the
27
appeal: Provided, Further, That every Notice of Denial shall include check-box options
28
to be checked or marked by the requester for the Immediate Administrative
29
Reconsideration or Appeal to the head of the agency. If the requester, after indicating
30
his desired remedy, submits his Request for Administrative Reconsideration or Appeal
31
with the government official communicating the Notice of Denial to the requester, that
32
government official shall be responsible for immediately coursing the Request for
33
Administrative Reconsideration or Appeal to the appropriate official or head of the
34
agency: Provided, Finally, That the requester may, in addition to and together with h<
35
Request for Reconsideration or Appeal, submit further arguments to strengthen
36
request;
37
38
(2) Instead of appealing or after the denial of the appeal, the person denied access I.
information may file a verified Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, praying tila
2
the government agency concerned be directed to immediately afford access to
\i'.
3
information being requested, Such Complaint shall be resolved by the Office
11
4
Ombudsman within sixty (60) calendar days from filing, or earlier when time is at
li
5
essence, taking into account such factors as the nature of the information requesle"
6
context of the request, public interest and danger that the information requested
7
become moot The Office of the Ombudsman shall promulgate its special rules (.
8
procedure for the immediate disposition of Complaints filed pursuant to this Sectlor
9
Unless restrained or enjoined, the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman shall •.H.
10
immediately executory, without prejudice to review in accordance with the Rules:
II
Court;
w;,
12
13
(3) Instead of filing a Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, whenever a request
14
for information is denied originally or on administrative appeal, the requesting party lnily
IS
file a verified petition for mandamus in the proper court, alleging the facts with certaln("
16
and praying that judgment be rendered ordering the respondent, immediately or
17
some other time to be specified by the court, to disclose the information and to pay !t,.
18
damages sustained by the requesting party by reason of the denial. The procedure
19
such petition shall be summary in nature;
Ii
20
21
(4) In resolving a Complaint or Petition brought under the preceding paragraphs (2) am:
22
(3), the Ombudsman or the court is empowered to receive the information subject of
23
claim of exception under Section 7 herein and examine them in camera to determln.
24
the sufficiency of the factual and legal basis of such claim, when such sufficiency canll(,'
2S
be reasonably determined through evidence and circumstances apart from tiiL
26
information,
i
27
28
(B) In the Judicial Branch - The Judiciary shall be governed by such remedies
29
promulgated by the Supreme Court,
21:
30
31
(C) The remedies under this section are without prejudice to any other administrative,
32
civil or criminal action covering the same act
33
34
(D) The remedies available under this Act shall be exempt from the rules on non-
3S
exhaustion of administrative remedies and the application of the provisions of Republic
36
Act No, 9285, otherwise known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004
37
38
(E) In case the requesting party has limited or no financial capacity, the Public
,!
Attorney's Office shall be mandated to provide legal assistance to the requeslci
2
availing of the rernedies provided under this Act.
3
4
SEC. 16. Keeping of Records. - (A) Government agencies shall create and/or
5
maintain in appropriate formats, accurate and reasonably complete documentation or
6
records of their organization, policies, transactions, decisions, resolutions, enactments.
7
actions, procedures, operations, activities, communications and documents received or
8
filed with them and the data generated or collected. These shall include working files
9
such as drafts or notes, whenever these have been circulated within the agency for
10
official purpose such as for discussion, comment or approval or when these contain
11
unique information that can substantially contribute to a proper understanding of the
12
agency organization, policies, transactions, decisions, resolutions, enactments, actions.
13
procedures, operations, and activities;
14
15
(8) Government agencies shall identify specific and classes of official records in their
16
custody or control that have continuing historical, administrative, informational, legal.
17
evidentiary, or research value for preservation by such agencies or their legitimate
18
successors, or for transfer to the National Archives of the Philippines. In addition, the
19
20
National Archives of the Philippines shall likewise identify specific and classes of official
21
records that it shall require agencies to preserve and transfer to it.
22
23
(C) In addition to the specific and classes of official records identified for preservation
24
under letter (8) of this section, the following shall not be destroyed:
25
26
(1) Records pertaining to loans obtained or guaranteed by the government;
27
(2) Records of government contracts;
28
(3) The declaration under oath of the assets, liabilities and net worth of public
29
officers and employees, as required by law; and
30
(4) Records of official investigations pertaining to allegations of graft and
31
corruption of public officers.
32
33
(D) Government agencies shall prepare, following standards and period promulgated
34
pursuant to Republic Act No. 9470 or the National Archives of the Philippines Act of
35
2007, a records management program that includes the following:
36
37
(1) A records maintenance system for the creation, selection, classification,
38
indexing and filing of official records that facilitate the easy identification, retrieval
1-1
,
1
and communication of information to the public;
2
2) A records maintenance, archival and disposition schedule providing a listing of
3
records under current use, for retention by the agency, for transfer to the National
4
Archives, or for destruction: Provided, That destruction of the official records may
5
be implemented only upon approval of the National Archives of the Philippines.
6
and
7
(3) A specifications of the roles and responsibilities of agency personnel in the
8
implementation of such system and schedule.
9
!
10
(E) In addition to its function as repository of all rules and regulations issued by
11
agencies as provided under Book VII, Chapter II of the Administrative Code of 1987, the
12
University of the Philippines Law Center shall, in coordination with the Office of the
13
President which has exclusive editorial and printing jurisdiction over the Official Gazette.
14
and with other relevant agencies, maintain a database, and publish the same in print
15
the Official Gazette or in digital or online form, the following:
In
16
17
(1) All laws of the Philippines and their amendments, from the period of the
18
Philippine Commission to the present;
19
(2) All presidential issuances from November 15, 1935 to the present, including
20
but not limited, to executive orders, presidential proclamations, administrative
21
orders, memorandum circulars, general orders, and other similar issuances;
22
(3) A database of all appointments and designations made by the President of
23
the Philippines; and
24
(4) Opinions of the Secretary of Justice.
25
26
SEC. 17. Publication in the Official Gazette. For purposes of mandatory disclosure as
27
provided in section 8 of this Act, online publication in the Official Gazette website shall
28
be considered official publication provided there shall be a timestamp in the said
29
document.
30
31
For purposes of compliance with Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
32
publication of the following in the online version of the Official Gazette, with the
33
corresponding timestamps on the document, shall be considered as official publication.
34
35
36
37
38
(A) All important legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the
Congress of the Philippines;
(B) All executive and administrative orders and proclamations of general
application;
,!
,!
(C) Decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of
2
Appeals or other courts of similar rank, as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient
3
importance to be so published;
4
5
(E) Such documents or classes of documents as the President shall determine
from time to time to have general application or which he may authorize to be published
6
7
However, other documents or classes of documents as may be required to be
8
published by law, such as petitions and/or legal notices in connection with land titles.
9
naturalization or special proceedings shall continue to be published in the print version
10
of the Official Gazette or in any newspaper of general circulation for purposes of
II
compliance with the publication requirement.
12
13
SEC. 18. Administrative Liability. - The acts enumerated in this Section shall be
14
tantamount to grave administrative offenses and shall constitute grounds for
15
administrative and disciplinary sanction against any public official or employee who
16
willfully and knowingly commits the following:
17
18
(a) Refusal to promptly forward the request under Section 11 of this Act to the public
19
officer within the same office or agency responsible for officially acting on the request
20
when such is the direct cause of the failure to disclose the information within the periods
21
required by this Act;
22
(b) Failure to act on the request within the periods required by this Act;
23
(c) Refusal to comply with the decision of his immediate supervisor, the Ombudsman, or
24
of any court ordering the release of information;
25
(d) Approval of policies, rules and regulations clearly contrary to the provisions of this
26
Act, and which policies, rules and regulations are the direct cause of the denial of a
27
request for information.
28
29
SEC. 19. Criminal Liability. - (A) Any public official or employee who falsely denies or
30
conceals the existence of information which is a proper subject for disclosure under thiS
31
Act shall be liable for the crime of removal, concealment or destruction of documents as
32
defined under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code.
33
(8) Any public official or employee who destroys, or causes to be destroyed.
34
information and/or documents being requested under this Act, for the purpose of
35
frustrating the requesting party's access thereto, shall be liable for the crime of removal.
36
concealment or destruction of documents as defined under Article 226 of the Revised
37
Penal Code.
38
(C) Any individual who knowingly directed, induced or caused the commission of the
,!
foregoing acts shall be liable as principal by inducement in the prosecution of public
2
officials or employees under this section.
3
(D) The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee
4
responsible for officially acting on the request, who shall claim an exception under
5
Section 7 of this Act, or under the Constitution, when such claim is manifestly devoid of
6
factual basis.
7
8
SEC. 20. No abuse in the exercise of rights and in the performance of duties
9
under this Act. - Public officials and employees, in the performance of their duties
10
under this Act, as well as citizens in the exercise of their rights under this Act, shall act
11
with justice, give everyone his or her due, and observe honesty and good faith.
12
13
Public officials and employees as well as citizens shall endeavor to handle information
14
kept or obtained under this Act with due care, to the end that inaccuracies and
15
distortions are avoided.
,!
16
17
Any public official or employee, or citizen who, in the performance of duties or exercise
18
of rights under this Act, willfully or negligently causes loss, damage or injury to another.
19
in a manner that is contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy, shall
20
compensate the latter for the damage incurred. This is without prejudice to other
21
remedies available to the aggrieved party under any other law for the same acts
22
23
SEC. 21. Mere Denial in Good Faith Not a Ground for Liability. - A mere denial in
24
good faith of a request made pursuant to the provisions of this Act shall not constitute
25
grounds for administrative, civil or criminal liability.
26
27
SEC. 22. Act Not a Bar to Claim of Right to Information Under the Constitution
28
No provision of this Act shall be interpreted as a bar to any claim of denial of the right to
29
information under Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
30
31
SEC. 23. Appropriations. - The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of thiS
32
Act shall be charged against the agencies' current budget and shall thereafter be
33
included in the annual General Appropriations Act.
34
35
SEC. 24. Separability Clause. -
If any section or part of this Act is held
36
unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions not otherwise affected shall
37
remain in full force and effect.
,!
17
SEC. 25. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and
2
regulations, issuances or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
3
including sections 18, 24 and 25 of Executive Order No. 292 in relation to Article 2 of
4
Republic Act No. 386, Memorandum Circular No. 78 dated 14 August 1964
5
(Promulgating Rules Governing Security of Classified Matter in Government Offices), as
6
amended, and Section 3, Rule IV of the Rules Implementing Republic Act No. 6713
7
(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), are
8
deemed repealed.
9
10
SEC. 26. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication In
11
at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
12
13
14
Approved,
IB
Personal Interview
Rep. Lorenzo Tanada III
December 10, 2012
1. How does a bill get passed?
Well, a bill gets passed, first of all, the proponents of any bill will file it with the bill
index, and then it is brought to the floor and read on first reading. After that, it will be
referred by the committee on rules to the appropriate committee. Once it is sent to the
appropriate committee, that's when the committee will hold its hearing to tackle the bill if
it's a singular bill, meaning there's no other bill like it, then there's no problem. If there
are multiple number of bills with the same topic, practically the same then there's a need
to consolidate. So during the hearing, the chair can already call for the attendance of
stakeholders whoever he thinks would be interested in the bill. And after hearing the
positions of the stakeholders and the author, then he can call for a technical working
group that will consolidate all the different versions. He will appoint a chairman of the
technical working group and he will ask if any other members are interested in joining
the technical working group plus of course the stakeholders. So everybody will go there,
consolidate, draft the substitute bill, and bring it back to the mother committee and that is
when the mother committee can either approve the bill immediately or take amendments
to the bill if needed, or settle controversial issues. Once that is done, the committee votes
on the bill, then it is sent back to the committee on rules for calendar in plenary for
plenary debate interpolation. Kasama na yung amendments dun, then voting on second
reading, and then voting on third reading. Then after that, it goes to the senate. Now, if
the senate has a similar bill and it goes through the same process, it has its version, the
house has its version, then a bicameral committee is called to reconcile the different
versions of the bill.
2. Where is the FOI bill now?
Right now, it's sad to say that despite the approval last Nov. 27, it's still with the
committee because the committee chair surprisingly called for another hearing on Dec 11
although we have not received the invitations but we were told in advance by the
committee secretariat, the purpose of which is to approve or sign the committee report. In
my opinion, this is not necessary. As a matter of fact, the practice here in the house by the
different committees and I have sat as chair in my committee in my second term, is that
once a bill is approved, you just pass around the bill or ask somebody to go to the
different members and have them signed, so obviously, this can be considered a delay by
the chair.
3. What differentiates your bill from the one in the senate?
More or less, the bill that they started with was the bill that came from the house. The
advocates worked with both chambers and they used my bill as the template. Of course,
during the committee, their committee can do whatever they want. And instead of FOI,
they called it POGI. Outside of that, I am not yet familiar with the different provisions
that may have been changed, or may still be changed when it gets to plenary, but at least
what i know is that the starting point was my bill.
4. What is the importance of FOI? Why are we pushing for this bill?
Well, first of all, it's a constitutional provision - article 3a section 7, and it makes good
governance, transparency, and accountability a reality. If you look at it, if you have
information, we can ensure that there is good governance. We can also be sure that we
can hold people accountable (as stated in?) The constitution and everything's transparent.
So i believe it's an important piece of legislation and you can even say it's the essence of
democracy - people's participation - because you engage the government and ask the
government "what are you doing? Are you doing things correctly?"
Well, for lawmakers, they become more transparent with whatever they're doing. For
example, whatever fund the government gives them for their district, they should be more
transparent about it. The districts also should know, the local officials should know how
funds are being used, how projects are being spent for, whether they're overpriced or not.
So it's safe to say that this changes the paradigm. It empowers people. Without foi, of
course we know the saying that information is power - the less info there is, the more
ignorant people become. And of course, if you are in a position of power, you would like
less information to come out.
You know, there's this wrong assumption that FOI’s for the media - it's not for the media
- as a matter of fact, the constitutional provision does not say it's a media right - it's a
citizen's right. It just so happens that the media practitioners are also citizens of the
republic. But even without FOI, the media has its own sources on how to hold people
accountable and make government act a certain way, so it should not only be considered
only a media right. It just so happened, it's just an incidental thing - but it would also help
media in getting information faster.
5. How does it encourage citizen involvement?
FOI is a neutral right. You have to do something to get the information you're asking for.
For example, you're interested in a SALN, but if you're just sitting down and not going to
a particular office and ask for it, you won't get it. Or if it's posted on the web, if you don't
open your computer, you won't get it. So you have to exercise that right in order to
benefit from it. We can pass the law but if no one wants to exercise it, it'll just be there.
How do citizens benefit from it, well, if they have access to information like budget, they
know what are the programs of the government. For example, if you're interested in
health, both national all the way down to the local level, if you're interested in health, you
can now ask and find out what particular program is there in health in one municipality or
in one province. You can even go further, like is there assistance to indigent people? And
if there is such assistance, you can avail of it. For example for farmers, if the Department
of Agriculture has a program for distribution of hand tractors and you want to avail of
such a program and you see it, they you'll be able to avail of such benefits. As part of
good governance, you help the government perform its duty by getting the information
you need. Of course, with regard to accountability, it's on the bill. You're able to monitor
if the government is using its resources correctly or not. If not, we hold people
accountable for that. That's the benefit of the bill.
6. What has been hindering the bill all this time?
The chairman of the committee on public information. His lack of interest in calling for
hearings with regard to FOI. He has been calling for hearings with regard to other subject
matters, but with regard to foi, he has not been calling as much as we would’ve wanted.
As a matter of fact, in the whole 2011, he did not call for one hearing at all. 2010, i can
tell you he called for one when he created the technical working group to consolidate the
different bills and the opinions of stakeholders. I was the one tasked to head the twg
because i was the one who pushed for the bill even in the previous congresses. So since i
knew it in and out, he asked me. The next time he called for a hearing was already
March of 2012. We were supposed to have a hearing in august, but he didn't call. In
October, we should’ve had another hearing but he said there was no room. I'm sure you
heard about that. Here, in Batasan there's no room? Why did I find a room? When I found
a room, i offered it to him, he didn't want to use it because I "failed to coordinate with
him." well, if I didn’t find a room, what is there to coordinate about?
But since i found the room, i informed him, now he doesn’t want to use the room. So the
third hearing he called was Nov. 13, when of course, nothing happened there except the
monologue of Congressman Antonino and his right of reply. The fourth hearing was last
week when we approved it in the committee. So my feeling and the feeling of others is
that if we had more hearings, all these issue, even the issue on the right of reply would’ve
been settled. Now that the number of session days is limited, now this is when he wants
to call for a hearing just to show he's interested in the bill...
7. How does the right of reply relate to FOI? Is there a need for it?
My opinion is we don't need it. As a matter of fact, it should not be included in with the
FOI because it would violate the constitution with regard to having two subject matters in
one bill. If they want to have a right of reply, it's a separate thing. As a matter of fact,
there are two bills on the right of reply which even the chairman has not heard at all, so
that's the problem of the chairman. Whether it's constitutional or not, there's not yet that
much jurisprudence in regard to it, but if you base it maybe on a decision of the SC where
it tackled the issue on political advertisement. Like an arbiter (?), the SC mentioned that
it was taking of property without just compensation. So you have to pay for your
advertisement. If you take that into consideration, demanding that you be given space to
print your reply is also taking without just compensation. And well, more than that, i
would say it's a violation of the freedom of the press with regard to editorial prerogative.
With that bill on the right of reply being inserted, or even having it as a separate bill, it
would act like a prior restraint because you would always feel that when i say this, they
can always demand... Now, the question is, who determines whether what i said is fair? Is
it the person who is injured or should it not be the court? My opinion is, it should be the
court that should determine whether what was stated was fair or not. Because if that is the
case, what may be fair for the journalist might not be fair for the injured. So that now
would be behind the head of the journalist and it will act as a prior restraint.
8. Any thoughts on PNoy's support?
For me, i still sincerely believe that he is in favor of this. He would not have created a
study group to engage myself and the advocates as early as Feb of 2011, and as a matter
of fact, in jan of this year, he came out openly and said he's in favor of the FOI.
Now, people are saying why can't he crack the whip? You know, that would be the easy
way out. We are three independent branches of government and we would like the house
and the senate to function and fight for what it believes in. And if you look at our
constitutional government, what happens is that the president, during the writing of
legislation is at the end - meaning he can veto or he can sign. So why ask him to get
involved now? It's enough that he has already mentioned it, for me. But people say it
happens - let's try to follow what is written in the constitution.
9. Assuming that the bill dies in this congress, what would your actions be?
I'm termed out, i can't run anymore but the foi has been in congress older than I am, so
I'm sure that those that have supported the bill, if they're re-elected would carry the
banner of the FOI and I’ll be there to support them.
10. Can you name several supporters of the bill?
From the partylist Akbayan, Rep. Walden Bello, from LP there's Rep. Teddy Baguilat,
Akbayan but now he's running in a leg. District Rep. Kaka Bag-ao, and people who are
very supportive of the bill. No one will come out openly and say they are against the
freedom of information. Because by saying that, they are going against our oath, that they
would uphold our constitution, so you would not catch anyone.
Personal Interview
Atty. Nepomuceno Malaluan
December 13, 2012
1. Since when have you been active in the campaign for an FOI bill?
Well, my organization, Action for Economic Reforms (AER), was launched in 1996 and
part of the focus of AER ay macroeconomic and development issues but at the same time
we are looking in terms of economic development, the need for institutional reforms also
in governance and even at that point we felt that a freer flow of government held
information was very important. It is a mechanism for fostering economic development
in terms of being able to have as a policy organization an informed participation which
can be had by a freer access of important information from government, whether it's for
policy development or data. So that's our foundation. Immediately we saw that as far as
the constitutional guarantee is concerned, even if we know the jurisprudence that it's
enforceable by itself, we see in practice the major legal gaps in its administrative
operation. I think by 1997, we already had a framework paper on why it is important and
what are the existing gaps. But what we didn't know is that there are other groups that are
also having problems in accessing information, part of that are media organizations and
part of that also are anti corruption groups. And even people's organizations or support
groups of people orgs helping, for example, farmers in agrarian reforms are also having
problems in accessing information. One big issue, for example, in that point, because
CARP was just being implemented in its first few years, isang problem halimbawa nila
ay yung land conversion and that data with respect to land conversion are with the
Department of Agrarian Reform, DENR and local governments, and sometimes the
courts, and the support groups of farmers are having problems accessing these documents
which are very important to farmers. Because sometimes they don't know, they thought
they are still claimants to the land when in fact na convert na yung land.
And as I recall, we had a forum on FOI I think we were the one who organized that
forum, in 99 or 2000, with other groups, and that's when we found out that there are other
groups that are concerned with freedom of information. After that forum we decided to
engage in the legislative process. And so what we did was to look into the drafts that
were existing then and tried to come up with an agreement of what would be key
provisions. And there was a long process of consultation we had until finally I think in
2001 the first bill of FOI that embodied some level of consultation with public interest
organizations, and particularly we formed the Access to Information Network around that
time, was filed, and our key partner then was Rep. Joel Villanueva of Sibak and Del De
Guzman of Marikina. When I said that at the same time other organizations we working
on it, I think PCIJ was also looking at it. PCIJ released a book looking at the state of
access to information in Southeast Asia, 2001 din siya. Ako naman, I also found out that
in different countries it's becoming a demand. I was invited in 2000 or 2001 in Japan by
some organzinations that were pushing for FOI. It was an international forum and I think
they contacted PCIJ but PCIJ pointed to me because they interviewed me also for
Philippine side. So what I found out is that in Thailand in 1997 and then in Indonesia
there was a movement also that was just beginning. And Japan at that time just passed its
FOI. From then on the campaign went forward and basically the legislative process
provided an opportunity for us based on our original draft, mainly public interest
organizations ang nag develop nun, but in the legislative process we came to interact with
other stakeholders which include of course various agencies of the executive department,
legislators, private sector.
2. What was the Access to Information Network?
As I mentioned it was the result when we organized that forum, we realized that there are
other groups that are concerned with that. And kaya originally the composition of that
access to information network were the different groups that were involved like PCIJ,
which is dealing with investigative reporting and having difficulty getting information for
its investigative reporting, Transparency and Accountability Network is doing work on
anti corruption issues and then the alternative law groups are also involved, kasama dun
ang Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, KAISAHAN, I think, which is working
naman with farmers' issues. And we expanded from there. So may mga legal
organization. But you would see these are public interest groups working in different
areas with a common experience in access to information. The practice was mixed in the
sense that some agencies were open but there were certain agencies that are not very open
in getting information. And we all agreed that part of the problem was the absence of a
more comprehensive FOI legislation that would supplement what is guaranteed in the
constitution.
3. So para po siyang alliance ng mga organization?
Yes, you can say that. Well we call ourselves an alliance, with partnership with a number
of legislators, particularly in the lower house. And as I mentioned, at that time, during the
legislative process when we got to interact with the different stakeholders, more and more
the bill was evolving to balance the different, sometimes conflicting concerns,
particularly with the executive department and their concern was with the confidentiality
of certiain information. So the exceptions issue was a key point of balancing the various
stakeholders' positions. So there was a natural progression from there and after 2001and
the congresses thereafter, parang it's a continous evolving of the bill. So what would
happen are some advances in terms of the discussion with the different stakeholders
during the legislative process and then what will be refiled is already the outcome of the
previous congress. We were also at that time learning the intricacies of legislative work.
We were also progressing in terms of being able to deal with a formal legislative process.
It's different in terms of what the law provides and how it works. You learn along the
way also in terms of representation in committees. TWG we thought originally that we
cannot be part of the technical working group, that we always need to be in partnership
with let's say a legislator to be able to have access to some of the phases in the
proceeding, when in fact we can represent ourselves in the TWG. The other thing there is
that we didn't have enough capacity to engage both Houses at the same time, so we were
focusing really in the lower house in the initial stages.
4. Ano naman po yung Right to Know, Right Now coalition?
Well that's part of the campaign progression. As I mentioned during those times even if
we were not able to pass the bill in the earlier stages, we really were seeing issues that
were coming up that required me to build on what we know, even my understanding of it
from a legal perspective, let's say as a lawyer is still continuing. Plus there were certain
things that were preventing us from really pushing during certain times like during the
impeachment of Erap, which disrupts the whole process. But in the last congress
precisely because of the learning we've had before and the fact that the consensus of the
stakeholders was already evolving, particularly with the bureaucracy. Ang pinapadala
kasi usually sa hearings ay hindi naman dun sa political level na cabinet secretary. Ang
pinpadala nila ay yung higher-middle level bureaucracy, hindi talaga yung mga cabinet
secretaries, which are the political ones. So the consensus have emerged earlier with the
bureaucracy that we're attending the committee, but the politics would change kasi very
political from cabinet level and they really have not been able to sift through the process.
But during the time of GMA medyo mataas na yung level ng consensus with the
bureaucracy, but politically, of course, hindi masyado. In fact we didn't engage the
presidency at that point because most of the public interest groups were against the GMA
administration. But maybe because of the experience we've had already and as I
mentioned the consensus already on the bill, there's also a learning process with our
champions in congress- the readiness to push it only matures at a certain point, example
si Rep. Erin Tanada. He has championed it consistently but his learning process of the
bill also takes time in the same way that the learning process of the public interest groups
were taking. But the 14th congress I think was already the maturation of the whole
process of being able to really push it in the House and eventually in the Senate despite
not dealing with the executive. And we realized at that point that political pressure is very
important. Aside from the fact that over the years people are getting more and more
aware and it's a common issue even for business sector, for Church. And so at the time
also that we're gaining ground in the legislative process, people are getting more and
more interested in the advocacy and people are getting more and more aware of the
importance of the passing of the FOI bill. So we saw the need of broadening the
campaign, so from ATIN, and mainly the mechanism for that expasion was getting them
to support statements originally. It's really a loose network in that sense. But habang may
mga nagsisign sa mga statements that we have we include them in the e-group, which is
the main mechanism for communication and for discussing issues, in addition to
legislative lobby work and face to face meetings.
So that's how it expanded into the Right to Know, Right Now coalition. So the R2KRN
coalition, in a way, is a campaign stage. We were getting very big advances, people were
getting more and more interested and getting on board and learning about the issue and
becoming more committed in a more involved way, but mainly through pag support nga
nung mga positions and statements and discussions that happen either in the e-group or
through meetings. We've had a number of mobilizations also. So doing a mix of media
work, kaya nag expand din yung media components. We're doing mobilizations, in 14th
congress ha, like rallies in grounds of the Senate and in the House, which brought labor
organizations, etc. And then we're doing public awareness groups, and so some people
who have partners in let's say Davao, different areas of the country. So it was supposed to
be a campaign phase but it made ATIN superfluous because why do you need to have
two levels of organizations. So in a way ATIN faded in favor of this coalition. But the
14th congress was also the realization that there is a very strong, unstated opposition with
politicians.
5. How was this opposition made evident?
Well it was made evident by what they did in the lower house. And these are very
influential legislators, too. Some of them I would assume are senior legislators. So we
can only go by actions because there is no one that says I oppose FOI bill but the actions
run contrary to that public statement. But the senate works differently. For one it's more
independent of the executive. Secondly, I think they are, because they are national public
officials, they're already used to public scrutiny. Because they're in the national limelight,
under scrunity by the media and various groups, etc, they don't fear transparency
anymore. In contrast to the house, ang dami pa dyan na hindi sanay. They're very
sensitive to criticism. And many of them would really rather not be noticed in the
national (scale). Ang may gusto naman dyan sa limelight ay yung mga ambitions sa
higher positions but many of them, especially the dynasties, are really content in having
their local groups.They're very sensitive to transparency and being put under scrutiny.
And that was something that we did not realize. We also thought that public
commitments would carry through and I don't know if you can look at PCIJ and research
on i, yung account nila when it was killed in the 14th congress. It was killed on a quorum
call on the last day but that was already the final act. They had an opportunity to ratify
the bicameral conference report which is the last.
Well just for background the legislative stages the bill has to go through before it gets
into law. So you have the first reading in both houses of the bills that are filed. The first
reading is just the reading in plenary, uaually just title and it's referred to the proper
committee and then the committee conducts the committee hearings and comes up with
the consolidation of the bills that are filed into a committee report that they will vote one
and then this has to happen in both houses. The committee report will be sent to plenary
for debates so a period of interpellations, congressmen and senators will ask questions to
the sponsors of the bill and then based on the interpellation, some will try to introduce
ammendments, that's called period of ammendments and then after the ammendments it
will be voted on second reading. After its vote on second reading, if it's approved, they
will come up with a clean copy of the bill. It has to be circulated at least three days before
it has to be voted on on its final and third reading. But what will be produced in both
houses often will have some differences and they have to go into a bicameral conference
for reconciliation. After which it will be sent back to both houses for final ratification. If
it is ratified in both houses, then it will be transmitted by the lower house to the president
for signing.And so we were in the final step when that happened. The bicameral
conference was already finished in January and there were three session days left,
February 1, 2, 3. It was already ready for ratification but they didn't want it put in the
agenda. Those were learnings as well. You learn as you go on, even if you study the
rules, it's different from how it's implemented. And then you really have to study how it
works to allow you to know how to push it within that context.
Unfortunately, that learning process is not a repeatable process. You will learn it, but the
time frame when you will be able to fully use your learning will come in the future or
will not come at all. And what you don’t know is that there will be new things you have
to deal with. But anyway, just to say that there were several opportunities, but it was only
on the very last day of that session of that congress of the 14th that they put it on the table
(that) it was questioned based on quorum. And then, when the roll call was made, I think
they required 135 members for a quorum at that time but there was only 128 members
based on the count. So we thought we lost, really, the struggle for attendance that day
because we were trying to reach the members of congress to encourage them to attend the
last day because there was a commitment to put it to a vote but we know that there were
texts going around asking congressmen not to attend because there is this bill that’s
gonna be railroaded. So when we got the roll call result of the day, we thought that, hey,
the other groups that were asking congressmen not to come, who were members of
congress themselves won the convincing, only to find out that night of the following day
that by our count, there were at least 8 that were actually present on the floor when the
roll call was made. So that’s another learning that’s not repeatable – you can only use it
the next time. Once there’s a voting, you have to really check the voting results. It’s also
difficult to implement that in practice because once it’s announced, they can already
declare the session adjourned for of lack of quorum. A question call is very high priority
in terms of order of motion – you can interrupt anything if it’s quorum. So you have to
have a mechanism whereby you can verify because it can happen again. In fact, it can
happen both ways – they might call a quorum when there’s not a sufficient number of
people on the floor. They can also call a non-quorum even if there’s enough people.
That’s where you can look at the PCIJ account. We have people stating that they were
there during the roll call and we have videos also of people actually present. There was a
quorum on that day.
In any case, fast forward to the 15th congress, one is we know that the composition of
congress is really the same from the 14th. The changes are just changes in names but the
composition, the profile, is the same. There’s nothing that really happened between the
14th and 15th congress as far as changing the profile of the members in both houses. But
the factor that we thought was different was President Aquino. Pres Aquino ran on the
platform of good governance, corruption, “the straight and righteous path,” last made a
statement that he would support it. Plus the fact that we know that many of those that
entered his cabinet were supportive of the FOI. Plus, his candidacy was supported by the
people who were pushing for the bill – the business sector, anti-corruption groups. These
were exactly the groups who supported the bill who also supported the candidacy of
PNoy. And so it was really a big surprise for us that he didn’t mention it despite letters.
We’ve sent letters to him... conjunctures where he would be addressing the country in the
inaugural speech, in the first state of the nation, in the second state of the nation, in the
third even. But he wasn’t mentioning it. In the first year, instead of supporting it, what he
was doing was that he was expressing so many concerns until he formed a study group.
But even after the study group has finished its work, he still wouldn’t endorse the work of
the study group. And when he finally endorsed it January of his year, we thought that that
was it, that the bill was a priority. But it was just an endorsement. It stops there. He took
a ands-off position after. That’s why we’re in a position we are in. The factor we had
thought would change the outcome was not there. In fact, it slowed us in the sense that
had we known that it would not be a factor, instead of engaging the study group for
example, for so many months, allowing the legislative process to slow down, to be
deferred, in consideration of the study group’s work. If we knew that he would not
support it fully in any way, then we could have focused on the legislative side.
But in the end, in a way, the advocates were left on their own. And so we had to deal with
the same resistance in the lower house. You know, the power and authority is with them.
You need so many factors to be able to hold that process. And it’s difficult because as I
mentioned, the fear of politicians is personal. Now, it’s different when you push a bill and
there are competing interests that are lobbying, for example. You know who your
enemies are. Of course, sometimes, there’s corruption involved, probably, and so it
becomes a conflict of interest between the legislators and the vested interest group. But
here, it’s different. They feel it’s them. It’s their political life that’s at stake. As I
mentioned, it’s different for the senators, but in congress, there are many like that. They
feel that it is bad for us personally. Unlike in other bills, some people are saying “don’t
pass it, it’s bad for us.” But it’s not really bad for the congressmen, it’s just a matter of
weighing, balancing. Like the RH, for example. It’s not an issue for them. It’s really
based on the advocacy of different groups. They believe in it or not. But does it concern
them personally? It concerns their constituency, it concerns the groups that are pushing it
on one side, But they think “this bill is about me, it’s about opening myself to public
scrutiny.”
And that’s the reason why the right of reply is a key concern, because it’s “my” right of
reply that they are pushing, it’s not the right of reply of any other person. It’s my right of
reply. You have to include this. If you will demand from me greater openness and greater
scrutiny, you have to give me something too. You have to give me a right to reply. Only
problem with that is that they wanted to reply on an area that is already traditionally our
freedom, and guarantees our protection – our freedom to express, our freedom to
criticize. And they think that’s the problem, when they feel its abuse. So there’s a very
big problem with respect to their perception of that freedom, that criticism, for example,
is abused. We can talk about areas that are injuries that are traditionally recognized as
areas of speech that’s not protected, like libel. But libel to them and criticism is the same.
In fact, I think they’re more concerned with criticism.
And my biggest surprise is when the president delivered his speech in KBP recently.
Because this premise is also based on being injured by unprotected speech. That was the
speech that traditionally is allowed not to receive any protection. In other words, it’s
outside the coverage of our freedom of expression if your expression injures somebody as
defined by the libel law. There’s certain kinds of expression that the law does not protect.
Or your constitutional guarantee does not protect. It does not protect you if as defined by
criminal law, it’s libellous. But we have to be careful there too, that we read that libel
provision, because there’s a different standard between simple private expression and
expression relating to areas of public interest. There is wider protection of public interest
issues. If the stringency of the standards of libel is relaxed in respect to matters of public
interest unless it can be proven really that it was intended with such malice that says your
intent was to damage that person. But that’s not their idea. In the speech of President
Aquino, the idea was of the negativistic press. You have to look at that speech where he
mentioned right of reply. It’s a coverage that mistakes fact for opinion. But certainly
these are areas that are precisely protected, coz the idea is even if there’s a mistake, the
freedom of expression itself can correct that by itself. If it’s criticism, the freedom of
expression will correct that by itself. That’s the idea. That’s why it has to be free. It’s a
market of deas. Of course, they can say there’s corruption... even that, you have to be
careful.
6. What future can you see for the FOI?
The future for FOI is that it won’t go away. The politicians fear it but it won’t go away
because it’s a guarantee that people will demand. When it will be passed is a matter of
when. It’s a matter of time. You know, they can forestall it. As I said, the learnings are
not repeatable but the learnings will make you closer and closer to getting it passed. And
you can see now, the issues of public concern of public concern, of public interest, are
being resolved more and more. Like exceptions, ano pang marereklamo nila sa
exceptions? It’s so balanced over the legislative process. What’s left now is the political
resistance already, and it’s a matter of time when we will overcome that political
resistance by a bigger political force. And we would be working with that. They cannot
repeat all of the public interest issues. Ang issue na lang talaga ngayon ay yung sa takot
nila, what t odo with the right of reply if it becomes a media issue. It’s not ripe for a
decision now but it will be discussed, the bills will come, the media will stay in a hard
line position against it, we will be forced to also engage in that process in the future and
at some point, a middle ground may be achieved. It’s a matter of time for this measure.
7. Were there differences in the political atmosphere in the different
congresses?
It’s very political, and because it’s very political, you cannot really compute it, calculate
it. What you can only do within your powers is something that’s within your grasp – your
ability to organize. Syempre there are limitations but there are things that are within your
power and things that are obviously very political and fluid so. It’s not repeatable because
you don’t know who will come. What nature, what to expect in the next president, what
kind of attitude, what kind of personality, what kind of political blocs you have to deal
with, how are your forces able to cope. So always, the challenge is organizing campaigns
like this. And what makes it hard is that it strikes at the heart of the politicians
themselves. It’s like anti-political dynasty.
8. How is the environment towards the FOI?
There were some strokes of luck. One stroke of luck there was the immediate passage in
the house. There are three regular sessions, it’s the term of congress divided into three
regular sessions. Before the end of the first regular session, we were able to pass it in the
house, and we were able to pass t in the house and we were able to assist in the house by
some stroke of luck also. Those are not repeatable. In fact, they have also learned their
lesson. They cannot allow it to pass early and that’s what Evardone did, make sure that it
did not pass early enough as chairman. That presents some learning for us in the 16th
congress if it does not pass now. That’s what I’m saying, it’s a matter of time, really,
he’ll run out of time, because this is a guarantee of citizens and citizens will continue to
value it. We need to know what they’re doing.
Sen. Antonio Trillanes III
Personal Interview
January 21, 2013
1. You filed a bill early during the 15 congress?
We are the technically the principal author of the bill.
2. After the first bill that you filed, did you file a subsequent bill?
No, we’re still in the 15th congress. I don’t need to.
3. Ano po yung salient provisions ng bill ninyo?
It details the kind of information that should be open to the public and the procedures of
how to access that information or documents. At the same time, it provided for a penal
provision that details the punishments for the violators of the law, should it be enacted
into law.
4. Napasa na po sa 3rd reading… after that po, what happens?
We’ll have to wait for the version of the HoR. Right now it was already passed by the
committee but it has yet to be sponsored on the floor. Once it gets sponsored on the floor,
it will now be interpolated on by the different congressmen. And after that, should the
period of interpolation be closed, they can now move to the period of amendments,
committee amendments, individual amendments, then they can pass it on 2nd reading, and
after three session days, they can pass it on to 3rd reading. Then we would have to
reconcile the senate and the house versions, which is why we will have a bicameral
conference committee meeting. Then, they will go back to both houses for the approval
of the body. After that, it’s now an enrolled bill, they will submit it to the president for
his signature. If the president vetoes the bill, it gets archived or it gets reversed through ¾
vote of both houses of congress. That’s the process.
5. This is the farthest foi has gone in the senate. Bakit mas madali sa Senate?
That is a sign that the president is lukewarm towards the bill. Because the way we are set
up, and the actual dynamics on the ground, supposed to be congress and the executive
and the judiciary are all independent constitutional bodies who are supposed to check
each other, but on reality, what happens on the ground is reflected on the policy of the
president. If it’s not moving there, it means the president is not interested. That’s the
reason why it got passed in the senate and not in the house.
In the senate, why are they interested in pushing for this? Because the prime movers for
this happens to be members of the opposition, particularly the senate president, the
majority leader, and even the sponsor of the bill, senator honasan. So if they get to pass
this bill, they will now have the tools to get information that they may use against the
seating administration. So that’s why they’re interested. And that’s now the fear of the
Aquino administration, that they would provide the rope in which they would be hanged.
6. Is there enough time?
Yes, if the president would back it up. Otherwise, it won’t stand a chance. Those are the
realities.
7. Why is it important?
My principal advocacy is anti-corruption and part of that is transparency. And this FOI
bill is the best policy to promote transparency with government. It’s just consistent with
my advocacies.
8. In case it doesn’t get passed, what’s the future of the bill?
We can try it again in the next congress, but it may have a chance at the latter part of the
16th congress, because by then, the Aquino administration would be going out, and he
may use that, leave that as a legacy which cannot be used against him because he’s on the
way out. So that’s how I see this thing happening. The new policy now would be
implemented during the next administration, which is definitely not Aquino because he’s
only good for one term.
9. How would the bill benefit ordinary citizens?
They would get to know what’s going on inside the bureaucracy. Some procurements
major, or big ticket projects, they can now scrutinize it. Being voters, being citizens of
the republic, they have that right now to demand certain information and make the
seating administration more responsible and accountable for their actions.
Personal Interview
Red Batario
February 12, 2013
1. Our thesis po kasi is on the history of the FOI...
Before wala pa talagang more concerted advocacy for FOI that time. There were just a
frew groups who were saying na this should be passed. In fact wala pa talaga yung
coalition. In fact there was no coalition before to work for the passage of the bill. Until
noong 12th congress nag coalize na yung iba't ibang organization. These are composed of
media organizations, civil society groups, individuals, etc. When they got together they
formed Access to Information Network (ATIN). Yan yung precursor ng Right to Know,
Right Now. The Right to Know, Right Now which was formed in the 14th congress,
latter part of the 13th congress and towards the 14th congress was the larger
configuration of different groups which includes the ATIN. Nung nagform yung ATIN,
that includes us the Center for Community Journalism and Development, the Philippine
Center for Investigative Journalism, Center for Media Freedom and Responsiblity,
Transparency and Accountability Network at marami pang mga civil society
organizations, exactly to work for the passage of the bill. So ginagawa ng coalition is to
conduct mga forums to raise public awareness about the FOI, especially in the provinces.
Kasi parang nakikita natin dun yung weakness, there's not much awareness especially in
the provinces. Dito sa Metro Manila medyo mataas pa yung understanding and
knowledge on the FOI and what are its implications. Pero pag lumabas ka, parang
mahina. So that's part of the work we did sa coalition.
But the main thrust also was to work with congress. So we worked with legislators at the
senate and at the lower house to have them crack the bill. Unfortunately in the 12th
congress parang hindi pa talaga masyadong hinog in terms of, uh, even the progressive
ones in congress ay hindi pa nila parang priority yung FOI. So it didn't take off during the
12th congress. So we were saying, "o sige, baka sa 13th congress meron," so ganun pa
rin, all these groups were still working and we even linked up with international
organizations, mga public interest groups abroad to be able to drum up support for the
passage of the bill. So karamihan ng ginawa din namin noon moblizations, marching on
the streets, going to congress, holding pickets, holding rallies, at the same time coupled
with a media campaign. So stories coming out in the media in the different TV stations,
sa mga dyaryo and parang may speaker's bureau, guesting in mga radio programs and TV
shows, as part of the campaign. But I think the basic difficulty that we faced is resistance
really from congress. In fact in the 13th and 14th and 15th, it was the senate that was
more open to the idea of passing the FOI law. But in the lower house talagang grabe yung
resistance and how they dribbled the bill from one to the next, especially nitong last
which was very very disappointing because during the time of Gloria Arroyo, I think it
was very clear where the administration stands and where the congress stands but in this
administration nilaro-laro pa eh. Okay we're for it but we will wait for congress, things
like that. But then the leadership of the lower house had shown that they are not really for
the FOI.
So yun yung mga challenges that we faced in the campaign to have this bill passed into
law. Marami na ring naicontribute yung coalition dyan, especially nga yung RKRN na
malaki na talaga siya na coalition, in fact there are almost 200 na yata na organizations
that are part of the movement, who all contributed to crafting that bill. So marami na rin
yang pinagdaanan, in fact when Malacanang said, itong administration ni PNoy said, we
want to study it, sabi namin sige well and good and we would welcome your suggestions.
In fact parang nagstep back pa kami na a few steps backward to accomodate the request
ng Malacanang na ito wag masyado etc etc just to have that bill passed. But there are
some non negotiables, like penalties, mga exceptions. Kasi before sa other proposed bills,
parang napakalawak naman nung mga exceptions parang wala ka na ring Freedom of
Information law. So we are saying that there should exceptions that are non negtionable.
They also cite issues on national security but sometimes parang masyadong blanket. So
we were saying na okay lang naman na pag usapan natin but at the same time pinasok
naman nila yung rider ng right of reply. So medyo dun kami nataranta. Hindi naman natin
ni-negotiate ito. Papasa niyo nga yan pero nakarider naman yung ROR. At the end, we
dared them sige pasa niyo yan, and let's see as long as you pass the FOI. Pero hindi
naman nila pinasa. Which means takot sila sa FOI talaga, not knowing the full
implications of the FOI. Kasi tinitignan nila na gagamitin lang ng media, which is not
true. FOI is for all citizens.
So yun yung pinagdaanan. Along the way medyo may nawawalang mga kasama,
napapagod sa mga kampanya, may nadadagdag din naman na mga organizations and
individuals in campaigning for the passage of the bill. If you ask me I'm optimistic that
this 16th congress will pass the bill eventually. Right now, no. Tingin ko parang it might
be too early to say. Although I'm not saying I'm closing all the doors and that we will stop
the fight. What I'm just saying is that I'm not a mistake that we've reached that level of
maturity to understand the level of democratice structures necessarily emmanate from the
people. So parang hindi ganun ang understanding ng congress. Eh siguro pag napalitan
yung mukha ng congress baka magbago. Pero kasi ngayon elite controlled pa rin ang
congress natin. Necessarily, hindi natin ma-eexpect yan na i0share yung power. Because
when you say freedom of information, access to information, that's sharing power which
is very difficult who have had power for centuries in this country.
2. Bakit po sa 12th congress lang nagkaroon ng coalition?
Kasi before that meron na ring ano yan, pero what I'm saying is mas naging, sa 12th
congress parang mas nag-gel yung mga groups. Before kasi parang mga individual
actions yung pag campaign for the passage of the bill. But it was in the 12th, I think it
was even in the 11th, na nagkaroon ng talagang mas concerted na action. Although before
nagmemeet naman pero sometimes informally. Halimbawa kami with NUJP, for
instance, we will have a forum on freedom of information, but hindi kasama yung ibang
groups. Until later on na nagkaroon ng decision na dapat mas aggresive na rin yung
pagpush ng campaign and at the same time mas marami na dapat na mga groups at
alliances.
3. Ano po yung mga trends and patterns na napansin niyo sa history ng FOI in
terms of positive and negative support?
Sa positive, nakita natin there's a seeming change in the thinking in the senate. Na parang
mas mature yung pagtanaw nila. Although you're dealing with lesser people so it's easier
that way. And if you are able to work with champions within the legislatures, especially
the senate. Parang it's easier to influence the others. At that time Enrile I think was trying
to shore up his image. Hindi naman siya nakialam masyado. And then when he said he's
going to support it wala siyang ginawa na to block it. At the same time hindi naman siya
masyadong nagsusupport but he didn't block it. So sina Cayetano and then later on si
Honasan was able to move it forward. It was really in the lower house, especially in the
14th congress where we thought we would be able to wrap it up but unable to because of
lack of quorum. But there were champions who were trying to move it forward. Again,
sina Erin Tanada yan and before that several party list groups. But what is very telling in
the campaign the passage of the bill is that in congress the politicians who are supporting
it are those who belong to the smaller parties or the partylists. Very few yung galing sa
mga big political parties like LP or the PDP Laban, etc etc, which tells you something.
Yung mainstream pa rin ay talagang resistant to having a bill or having a law that would
allow people to have access to information. Sa local level ganun din eh. If you go to the
local provinces, municipalities ganun din eh. Parang takot yung mga officials na buksan
yung kanyang... when in fact the constitution guarantees. Wala ka nga lang law that says
okay this is what you will do.
4. What was it about the 14th congress that pushed the bill to where it got?
Well intense yung campaign. But I think napaglaruan din eh. Okay sige, we'll allow you
to get this far but in the end you will not see the light of day, you will not have this
passed. So parang binigyan lang ng lip service ng iba sa congress. And even the
champions of the FOI believed that they will be able to pass it. Because at the very last
minute, nandun na eh. Ipepresent nalang for plenary tapos biglang nagdeclare ng lack of
quorum because of this person, si Antonino who was pushing for the right of reply. So in
the next congress, yun na yung nakapasok nun. And what is ironic there is that in a
speech of President Aquino, parang inendorse pa niya yung ROR rather than the FOI
where it was his campaign promise to push for the passage of the FOI bill.`It was for
transparency and accountability and his fight against corruption.
5. Do presidents have an effect in law making?
They do have a large effect on the legislative process, when they certify a bill as urgent,
especially a president as popular as Aquino. Siguro kung with GMA yan baka magkaroon
pa ng problema, but with Aquino if he certifies the bill as urgent like what happened to
the RH Bill. So in three days it was passed. How long has the RH bill been in congress?
Mas matagal pa yan sa FOI. Pero a president can have a vastly huge influence on the
actions of congress, kahit di niya sabihing oi ipasa niyo yan. But if he certifies it as
urgent, especially if the president enjoys quite popular support, pasado yan sigurado.
6. How has PNoy backed his claims regarding the FOI?
Well he's always saying that he's for the bill and even people in Malacanang say so.
However they keep on saying also that they are leaving it up to congress to debate
knowing the composition of congress. So parang washing their hands off but at the same
time you cannot fault them. But if you say okay I will certify this as urgent because I
believe in it, then that's another story.
7. The 14th congress almost passed the FOI bill. Does it have anything to do
with Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, given the kind of government she was
running then?
Maybe partly. But it is again debunked by what happened in the 15th congress. So it's
really people in congress themselves, the congressmen, representatives. These are people
who are still part of the old political elite. Yung kanilang systems ay ganun pa rin. I think
it's not because of GMA's influence at the time, maybe partly true because there are
things she wants to hide, but generally I think it's really congress.
8. Is there enough public clamor for the bill right now?
Alam mo that's a very good question because that's the thing that's missing. People don't
seem to be able to relate to FOI because they are not able to relate information with their
daily lives. And I think that's the challenge for all of us. Especially among us who are
involved in the campaign. Sa tingin ko, personally, there's a lack really of heightening
awareness about the FOI. How can it get more popular? Bakit yung sa cybercrime?
Sandali lang pero andami na. Social media, twitter, FB, lahat, so much reactions. Ang
laki ng impact kaagad and so widespread. Bakit yung FOI ang tagal tagal na pero yung
tao parang... Personally, I think it's because people can't relate to something that's so
difficult to understand. So I think the challenge for us, especially now, in the 16th
congress, to be able to build constituencies. For people to be able to understand it better.
Ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng FOI sa buhay namin? In fact ang dami ngang debate sa
paggawa ng slogan eh. Yung ipasa na yung FOI. Ano ba yun? Parang ang hirap to look
for a slogan that will carry the campaign. So yun yung isang challenge dyan. So I think
yung isa naming failure is to generate public support. Kahit maraming civil society
partners, people don't talk about it.
9. So how will you generate public support?
I don't have any idea yet how. But we do have individually, yung mga organizations
namin, like us for instance, we always carry the discussion of the FOI whenever we have
trainings and workshops outside in the provinces. That's where we also generate reactions
and information about how people think about it. As I said, parang kailangan ipopularize
yung language ng FOI. Ano ba yung translation nito sa Tagalog? Wala eh. Kalayaan...
10. Paano niyo po pinapaliwanag sa mga tao?
Nililink namin. Kasi pareho nga dun sa killings ng mga journalists. Pag pinatay mo ang
isang journalist anong ibig sabihin niyan? Hindi lang may pinatay na tao o may pinatay
na mamamahayag. Ang pinapatay mo dyan yung roots ng demokrasya, yung flow ng
information. Parang ganun din sa FOI. Kung wala kang information, kasi yan yung
powerful na institution, pwede niyang gawin ang kahit anong gusto niyang gawin ng
hindi mo alam. Malay mo niluluto ka na sa sarili mong mantika. You have to try to break
the concept down into chewable pieces. Napakachallenging kasi ang lawak naman ng
Pilipinas so you need resources for that. In some areas, halimbawa yung mga major cities
in the provinces, I would say nagkakaroon din ng mobilizations tuwing may actions yung
coalition. But that's about it. If you go to the rural areas, wala eh. We started some sort of
an activity sa probinsya na parang write your congressmen na ipasa na natin tong FOI.
But people, Filipinos in particular, aren't so keen in writing. Magaling lang tayo
magreklamo but when we're asked to write, people don't. You have to present it to them,
give them the facility to be able to do that. I hope pagdating sa 16th congress kung meron
kaming energy, is to really be able to dwell. Because unless you have public support, like
what happened sa Cybercrime, walang mangyayari. Because the congressment don't feel
it. Walang pressure sa kanila. And the president does not feel it. O parang you're just a
small group. Kahit sabihin mo pang you're 200 organizations, it's still a small group. But
if you're talking about people from all over the Philippines saying now we need that, then
that's different. So yun yung isang malaking challenge and I think it should be the main
focus of the campaign rather than tututok naman kami sa congress and we've had so
many lessons already working with congressmen. Baka yun yung maging strategy for the
next congress.
11. What was in the 12th congress that organizations decided to form a coalition
together?
Wala naman. Pero I think the person who can give you a better grasp on the history of the
campaign ay si Nepo. Mas matagal siyang nasa campaign rather than us eh. Kasi nung
ininvite niya kami magjoin almost 12th congress na yun eh. Ano palang yun, Access to
Information Network. So siya and then TAN, Transparency and Accountability Network,
nauna rin sa amin eh, sina Vincent Lazatin. Maybe you can talk to him also. Sila yung
mas matagal na kaysa sa amin dun sa campaign. So I think they would have more
knowledge and understanding what went on before.
Personal Interview
Ed Lingao
February 22, 2013
1. Sir, why wasn’t the media covering the FOI bill in its early days?
I think before, walang coalition or network that was fighting for it. There were other
things that appeared on the plate of everybody else during that time. For example, in
1992, you're talking about the first presidential elections since EDSA. That's one. The
other thing is, that was the time we were having peace talks with ram. So maraming ibang
nasa plato ng mga reporter and ng mga csos. Maaring hindi pa siya nasa list of priorities
ng maraming tao. And it's easier now that you have a network. Madaling maghugot
hugot. I guess, during that time, wala pa talaga sa list of priorities ng maraming tao.
2. Kailan po kayo or ang PCIJ naging involved sa FOI?
I'm not sure kung kailan yung right Right to Know, Right Now nagcoalesce eh. I'm not
sure about that, I have to check with Malou on that because I've only been in PCIJ in
2009, so it predates me. Actually ako, just when I joined PCIJ.
During the Gloria years, not that it's an excuse, again, there were other things on the plate
of everybody else. That would include attempts to stifle press freedom directly. FOI kasi
is bit of a more indirect answer to press freedom eh. It's loosening controls on
government information. But in the time of Gloria, it was the other way around. There
were repeated attempts to crack down on the media itself on expression, not on the access
to information, but on expression. That's a step further eh. So during that time, I would
imagine the emphasis was to protect the barricades. I guess inclusions on the freedom of
expression. Alam mo yun, kasi if this is freedom of expression, the other one is freedom
of information. This is the freedom to bring out. This is the freedom to take out. They're
complementary, but one is the polar opposite of the other.
3. Ironically sir, yung pinakamalayong narrating po ng FOI was during the
14th congress. How do we make sense of that?
That is true. It's difficult to make sense of that. We've asked ourselves that several times.
How is it that it's the GMA congess that almost passed the FOI? I don't think anybody's
really come up with a satisfactory answer to that yet eh. GMA never committed to the
FOI, not like Pnoy. Pnoy committed to the FOI while he was still a candidate, and the he
recommitted himself as a president though not is a direct way. He had his
communications group engage us. I was never really satisfied with the answers that have
come out on that issue.
4. What were the answers that have come up?
Isa, baka iba yung composition ng congress. The other is that, GMA was already on the
way out. That was a time when, you might call it a lame duck thing, when the president
no longer had the same hold that she used to have over congress. That makes more sense
than the others, which could be why it did not advance as much in the previous congress,
in the 13th congress.14th congress kasi, pagoodbye na yan, eh. And GMA then was the
one of the most hated presidents during that time.
So, I would imagine that it would've been easier for legislators to be convinced that it was
the most populist thing to do, the most popular thing to do, to move on the FOI now that
the president is on her way out, and that she's very unpopular, as against now, that you
have a very popular president, one who has waffled, neither here nor there, sometimes
mukhang oo, pero sometimes mukhang hindi. Hindi mo matantya kung ano ka ba talaga.
That could signal the congress, and at the time when he's still very popular, the signals
can be taken either which way. And if you ask Ben Evardone, sabi ni Ben Evardone, I've
been waiting for a signal from the president. That's very clear. It has not come. And Ben
Evardone is on the pecking order of the LP in the campaign. If he's that close to the
president, what does that tell you? And what does that tell the rest of congress?
5. What can you say about PNoy’s claim that he's supporting the bill?
I suppose, as a matter of principle, he does support an FOIA. But you know, support is
relative eh. In the same way that everybody, every president would claim that he supports
democracy, but even that democracy could have several degrees. So, si Pnoy had quite a
lot of concerns about the FOI from the very start. In a way he's much like his mother.
Cory had general ideas about democracy which were acceptable naman, but she also had
very personal feelings about the press in the sense that she took things very personally.
Yeah you're free and I believe in freedom of expression, I believe in the freedom of the
press, pero you're hitting me eh. Although she never cracked down on the press, but she
would sometimes lash out at the press, and that would send reverberations down the line,
although not on a legal way. You might say that it's a very unpolitical or a very politically
unsophisticated way of dealing with the press, because the more sophisticated politician
would or a more savvy politician would know how to massage the press eh. Would know
how to deal with the press, and you could see that in a lot of senators. For example, kahit
inis na inis na sila, magaling sila magmasahe, they know how to get back to the good
graces of the press . Not that politicians should do that, pero you can see where Cory and
Pnoy are coming from. Sila yung tipong pag g alit sila, pag inis sila, they show it. That
could be good or bad at the same time, kasi nga whatever they say, hay ever comes out
from them has implications on the political level as well.
6. What are the factors that affect the passage of an FOIA?
You might want to narrow it down kasi ang daming factors niyan eh. Factors from the
president, or factors in congress, or in general. Pwede mong himayin ng ganun. Factor
one would be presidential support. A clear, unequivocal voice from Olympus could
clearly push it through. Everybody in congress says they're waiting for a word from the
president, and the president isn't saying anything. So if the president says, finally, that
you guys should work on that, then there shouldn't be any more excuse from the minions.
Clear, unequivocal support from the president. Number two is, assuming you get number
one, number two is a very cooperative congress. Assuming that you get number one and
assuming that the congress is still pandering to Malacanang because the president it still
very popular.
Assuming that you don't get number one, number two would be a congress that is
proactive and progressive, which appear not to have yet. Although you could see that
there are champions of the FOI in congress, pero iilan lang sila eh. In the end you go back
to the fence sittersd which is most of them. You have the very noisy ones who are
against, you have the very noisy ones who are for, and you have a big gray area of fence
sitters who would usually want to err on the conservative side of things, which is that if
we don't have to, we shouldn't.' If we don't have to release documents or information,
then huwag na lang. Let's be conservative about it. And you could imagine that almost
everybody would be on that side of the fence.
When you talk to Teddy Baguilat, the congressman who's very proactive for the FOI, si
Teddy would say na sa congress, usap usapan yan, na kung kailangan talaga, if is ano, di
susunod tayo. Pero kung di naman kailangan, ba’t pa tayo maglalabas? Ano, uungkatin
nila lahat ng detalye mula sa mga ninuno natin? A lot of them are dynasties eh. Ibang
galing sa congress, 3rd generation, 4th generation, or 2nd generation. So ang worry nila,
baka uungkatin yung mga pinaggagagawa ng mga tatay natin, lolo natin. Para saan yan?
Bakit parang gugulo lang ang buhay natin eh. That could be number four. The feeling na
hindi pa ba sapat ito that we have a very democratic government? Isn't that enough? That
is also malacanang's argument for the longest time. The DBM has been publishing data.
Several executive departments have been uploading data on the Internet which is good.
So therefore, you would have the argument that we don't need an FOI, we’re transparent
right now, which is also good but is also misleading kasi then you also have the argument
that no, you'll only last for six years. If you don’t have the structure, the mechanism, or
the legal framework that will continue the transparency after you step down, then you go
back to square one. So what, we're going to be dependent on the president who feels
today that I want to be transparent? Very personalized naman ang presidency mo.
7. What's the difference between the Senate and the HoR? Why did the Senate
pass it more quickly?
First of all, we have fewer senators. And those senators are, generally speaking, of a more
sophisticated mindset. Iba kasi. If you look at the senate, the senators are elected on a
national scale. The congressmen are elected in a very local scale. So usually, when you
are elected on a local scale, you tend to think in terms of kingdoms, little fiefdoms. A
district's actually a little kingdom where you throw in your patronage, throw in your pork
barrel and you select who which among your minions to propagate and to promote, so on
and so forth. You have more to hide in your little kingdom than you would if your
constituency was nationwide. Masmasaling magtago pag congressman. Mas mahirap
magtago pag senador. O yun, also yun nga, because you're elected on a national level,
mas sophisticated ang political thinking mo, so you tend to think in terms of what the
media wants. Pag senador ka eh, what would the media want? I know this doesn't sound
so good ah, but you tend to pander more on the media eh. Unlike the congressmen, they
tend to pander more to patronage politics. What would I need in my fiefdom for me ,to be
able to run for re-election? So iba yung realities nila. In other words, mas swabe yung
mga senador. Mas marunong sila maglaro. I’m not saying they're better.
8. Is there enough public clamor for FOI?
There's substantial public clamor. I don't know lang if you could say that there's enough
in the sense that you would want to see. Kasi alam mo, ang hirap kasi ibebenta ang FOI
sa publiko na ang main concern ay presyo ng langis, presyo ng bigas. Di mo naman
makakain ang FOI eh. Buti sana kung freedom of load or freedom of rice. Freedom of
information, ang hirap ibenta eh. Ang hirap ipaliwanag.
9. So how do you explain it to the public?
Not easy, but you as the voter or you as constituent should have the freedom to ask where
the money of your barangay is going. Bakit yung health center mo ay walang budget?
Bakit yung konsehal mo ay parang yumayaman ata at ang lakila laki ng Makati at QC
pero bakit parang naambunan lang kayo? That is how you try to deal with popularizing
the issue of FOI that it’s not just a media issue, although we would appear to be the
biggest beneficiaries, but it is your issue as a voter, as a constituent, because in the end, it
is your money. You as a taxpayer should have the freedom to ask where your money
goes. But it's still very hard. Likewise, hirap ipaliwanag yung ROR, bakit hindi maganda
yung ROR. Tama naman may karapatan dapat silang mag reply eh. Ang hirap
iargumento, and then you talk about press freedom, the right against prior restraint and all
that, the right for you to have an editorial policy of your own, from incursions by political
forces to dictate on what should be your headline. Parang hah? Ano yan? Diba dapat
patas lang naman dapat?
10. How would FOI fare in the 16th congress?
It depends on the president. I know was FOI was able to make progress despite the
former president, despite Gloria. But realities were different then eh. Realities are
different now. If the president continues to waffle on the FOI, concern is that you might
still not get an FOI even under a more democratic president. Because nga of that feeling
na democratic ka na eh, it's not needed. And si GMA kasi was not one to talk about the
FOI bill naman eh, she was not one to go into the intricacies of why she wanted or not
wanted. It was not on her radar eh. But if Pnoy says that he has concerns for the FOI
because of this and that, then the congress gets ideas. Presidente mo ganyan eh. Kung si
bossing pala may problema dun, eh bakit tayo aandar. So mas maigi pa yung kung ayaw
niya talaga, wag na lang siya umimik. Di yung eh kasi naman yung media eh kinakalkal
patients yung love life ko. If the president says that, then that sends signals to congress.
Eh siya naman, kahit hindi siya tinatanong, pinaguusapan niya yung love life niya.
11. Bakit nung 12th congress lang po na-form yung coalition?
I’m afraid I cannot answer that question.
12. How have you pushed for the FOI?
We're trying to personalize it. Ito pera mo, dapat alam mo, dapat makialam ka. What
they've been trying to do since late last year, the Right to Know Right Now coalition,
they've been trying to devolve the issue down to the local levels. The Right to Know
Right Now coalition is composed of urban poor groups, civil society individuals. Last
year, the coalition has been organizing fora, for example, women's groups in QC, in
Marikina, where the issue is explained. Kayo as women's groups you could ask about
information about the budget for health clinics, nailabas ba, nagagastos ba yung pera sa
tamang gamot. You should be able to ask that, you should be able to ask for documents
or data. We've been trying to do it that way. Sectoral issues that people can relate to.
Putting a face on transparency and government.
13. What else can the government do?
Nakarecess na eh, congress will resume in June for three days just for the purpose of
formally adjourning. There's no more hope for the 15th congress, 16th congress lang
talaga. Again you start from scratch, of course, perhaps you might have a new group of
legislators here and there, but were still taking off from where we left off which is an
administration that continues to waffle on their stance with FOI and a congress that
would take its cue from that administration. Throw in the complication that this would be
the second half of his term which in this case he'll begin to be a lame duck president by
2014. So yung influence niya would begin to wane. That can be good or bad. It's really
hard to say. It depends on which way the wind blows eh. If the president continues to be
very popular in the last few years, if he gets the wild idea of supporting the FOI then that
would be good. Pero if you leave it to a conservative congress kasi then you would never
go anywhere. You go back to that eh. You're talking about a chamber of fence sitters
who'd rather err on the side of conservatism especially when it comes to divulging
information about them. The best proof of that is the SALN. The senators have all
released their SALNs, the executive has released their SALN, walang problema dun.
Congress, you could not get them to release their SALNs. Not as a group, and not
individually. Individually, yeah, you could get a smattering of SALNs, pero generally
wala. Hindi na lahat kayo majority administration coalition? Akala ko transparent kayo?
Hindi pa rin eh. Look at it this way, we almost got it during Gloria's time despite Gloria,
so if you have a proactive congress in the 16th congress, you could, there's a chance and
it will be nice to get a push from Malacanang. But if the signals from Malacañang are on
the negative side, then pare-parehong walang chance. Ang daming ifs eh.
Personal Interview
Vincent Lazatin
March 5, 2013
1. Since when have you or your organization been active in the campaign for an
FOI?
Since pretty much the beginning of the organization so that was 2001. When we formed
the organization in early 2001, there was a national consultation for an anti-corruption
agenda. And I think one of the things that was identified in the eight point agenda was the
need for freedom of information legislation.
2. Since 2001, what factors have you noticed that either hinder or contribute to
the passage of an FOI or its development?
Well, hindrance is really lack of commitment and political will from our political leaders
to pass the legislation. In 2001... 4... 7... so 14, 13, 12. In the 12th congress is when we
started our involvement. We really didn't get much headway in the legislation. I think one
of the reasons perhaps is that there was just a small group of us pushing for it. And that
was also true for the 13th congress in 2004. Although by the 13th congress I think we
were trying to increase our number. It wasn't until the 14th congress where we made a
conscious effort to create a real campaign around FOI. And so from 2001 til about 2007,
it was just what we called the Access to Information Network. Maybe about less than 10
organizations that were involved with the Access to Information Network. So then in
2007 or post 2007 we decided that if we really wanted to try to generate more public
support we had to create a larger coalition. So it was sometime in the 14th congress when
we launched the Right to Know, Right Now campaign. And that's when we really
increased the number of advocates for freedom of information. And a conscious effort
was made to reach out to all different kinds of sectors. Whereas before the access to
information network was primarily public interest groups and media groups, by the time
we sat to expand the campaign for the Right to Know, Right Now coalition we were
reaching out to public sector, to labor, to human rights, social development, business. So
we really widened the campaign to other sectors and groups.
3. Why was it during the 14th congress that the coalition realized it needed to
get bigger?
Yeah I guess it was after going through the 12th and 13th congress unsuccessfully
without getting a significant movement in the legislation, by the 14th congress we felt
that maybe it's time to broaden the base. And also by that time, 2007, I think there were
really very heightened concerns and I think this was what was crucial because from 2001
to approximately 2005, people weren't really focusing on freedom of information as a
real, sort of good governance piece of legislation. Post Garci in 2005 when the political
situation turned bad, the Arroyo administration was put in survival mode and it terms of
corruption things started getting worse, then I think more and more groups started to
realize the importance of the freedom of information. So by the time 2007 came around,
the 14th congress, a lot more groups were talking about freedom of information.
4. Aside from forming a bigger coalition, what else were the changes in terms of
activities from the Access to Information Network to the Right to Know,
Right Now coalition?
Well for the first time, with a wider coalition, we had mass demonstrations. We couldn't
mount mass demonstrations with a handful of organizations. So we did a couple of
mobilizations to try to put pressure on the legislators to pass freedom of information.
That sort of held on since the formation of the Right to Know, Right Now coalition.
5. Why do you think the bill got to its farthest during the 14th congress?
I think a couple of things happened there and I'll contrast it with the current 15th
congress. I think that in the 14th congress the legislators were taken by surprise. I don't
think they were prepared for the legislation to go as far as it did. And so they were sort of
off guard, for those who were posing it. And then in the end, as you know, they just killed
it with call for quorum. In the 15th congress I think the volume had been raised
significantly enough. The legislators were aware of it and even the new president also
was aware of it. So that I think there was a conscious effort to make sure that it didn't
progress.
6. What can you say about the president's support or lack of support for the
bill?
I think the president has, by his actions, shown that he is not in favor of the bill. I mean I
think that's clear to us. Because if he were, then he would have passed it. Now he has said
through his spokesperson that they're not prioritizing it because they don't see the public
clamour for it. I don't recall any public clamour for Cybercrime Law and yet Cybercrime
was enacted. So I don't think public clamour is really a real issue. I think at the level of
the president, he has discomfort with sharing information especially with media. I think
his fears are one, that media is corrupt and therefore will just abuse the information. To
some extent I agree with him on that. And I think two, he fears that the information may
be abused by his political rivals or opponents. I don't agree with that. I don't think that he
should be fearful of that. If he is on the daang matuwid, no matter what information
people would dig up and try to throw at you, if there's nothing wrong, there's nothing
wrong, right? And that will die a natural death. During the time of GMA, scandals were
coming up every week and granted we didn't have access to information legislation but
the media was able to dig up the information anyway. And yet all the we threw against
GMA, nothing was enough to unseat her. So I don't see why the president, the current
president Aquino, would be fearful about that. On his fears on media, while I agree with
him that media is corrupt, I don't agree with holding FOI a hostage until media addresses
its issues. So going back to I think that's where the president stands. Now that the 15th
congress, just going back to my comparison with the 14th congress, I think the awareness
was high and therefore a lot of the opponents were on guard, as compared to the 14th
congress where they were really taken by surprise. And that's why I think in the 14th
congress it got as far as it did. And plus we did have very good champions both in the
House and in the Senate. In the 14th congress we had Senator Allan Peter Cayetano. His
predecessor earlier in the 14th congress was Senator Revilla who actually did nothing for
the bill. But when there was a change in leadership I think it was from Villar to Enrile
there was a shuffle in the committees and the committee on Mass Media and Public
Information went to Peter Cayetano. In the lower house we had Representative Benny
Abante who was initially sort of playing along with us. I don't think he was at the
beginning an advocate. What was crucial in the 14th congress was that he let
Congressman Erin Tanada take chairmanship of the TWG. And under the stewardship of
Tanada, things really moved. In the 15th congress we basically had a committee
chairman in the House in the name of Ben Evardone who from the very get go was not
for freedom of information no matter what public statements he has made.
7. What's the difference between working with the Senate and the House of
Representatives?
Well first is that they're just a sheer number. In the Senate you're working with a lot less
people. And there is in the 15th and the 14th congress, there's very little resistance in the
Senate. The most we got were some questions from the likes of Senator Arroyo, Senator
Santiago, but those concerns were overcome. In the House it's a completely different
dynamic. You got so many more people to deal with. And that makes it all the more
difficult. Because we don't have real parties in this country, you can't even work with the
parties. It's really working with individuals.
8. Why do you think there's less resistance in the Senate?
I'm not sure. One is because there's so few of them resistors can be easily identified.
When you're sitting among 23 others and you resist it, it's easy to be noticed. But I don't
know. I really can't think of any other reason but that.
9. What can you say about the issue with the current version of the bill being
"watered down?”
I think the coalition has made a stand that it doesn't believe that the bill has been watered
down. The latest draft, I forget which HB number we're talking about, I think is
something that is acceptable to the FOI advocates. We've bent a little on some areas and
these are the areas which I think are not the non negotiables.
10. What do you think, if there is any, is lacking in the campaign for the FOI?
I think what we perhaps failed to do as a campaign is to make it an everyday issue for
people. A lot of people think that freedom of information is a very high level policy issue
and that it doesn't affect the day to day lives of people. And so I think as a campaign what
we have failed to do is show... (cellphone feedback 15:13-15:30)
11. What future can you see for the bill?
The future I see is legislation in one way or another. I have a sneaky suspicion that
perhaps President Aquino will support it in the final years of his administration. Because
it's hard to be a president on a platform of good governance and daang matuwid without
having the freedom of information. So perhaps towards the end of his term we might see
him supporting the bill.
12. Why not now?
Well I think it's because of some of the fears he has that I expressed earlier. Freedom of
information, the advocacy's been around for over a decade. The president made a few
words during the campaign that we needed legislation and yet here we are with no
legislation. 10 years ago nobody was talking about Cybercrime Prevention. The president
never mentioned anything about Cybercrime Prevention in his campaign. And yet he
signed a law on cybercrime. He's made a couple of public statements about media, about
how media's abusive, he's made a reference to right of reply. So if you read into his
public statements you'll see where he lies on that. I think there's a bit of a condescending
tone, that he thinks people could not be trusted with information. And while I give his
administration credit for being the most transparent administration we've seen in decades,
there comes with that a bit of arrogance. Him saying well don't worry about transparency
because we'll release information when we want it. We're doing well so don't question us.
And I think that's the wrong attitude, for a couple of reasons. One is the president only
really has control over the executive branch. The freedom of information would cover all
three branches. Second is, by taking that stand, he's not doing anything for the
institutionalization of the access to information. Because the very next president could
very well rescind whatever EOs the president has issued in terms of disclosure and
transparency. I don't know if he's playing stupid but I'm sure he realized that.
13. What do you think about the attempts to insert a right of reply section in the
FOI?
I think the right of reply is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with the
freedom of information. And again the legislators that are trying to push that are showing
their hand in terms of their fears. And to be honest while there is a large constituency for
the freedom of infomation I don't see any constituency outside the halls of Congress
pushing for the right of reply. The constituency for the right of reply besides well within
the well of Congress, I mean it's only the congressmen and the public officials who care
for the right of reply. (feedback 19:30-19:39) But they are two separate issues and should
not be taken up simultaneously.
14. How do you think the campaign for the passage of the bill will improve?
You mean in the 16th congress? I think we made a different attack in the 16th congress.
We've learned a lot working in the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th congress. Some of that,
those lessons, we can use in the 16th congress. Since it's a matter of strategy, I don't
know if Nepo disclosed it, but I don't think we want to reveal it just yet.
(cellphone feedback 20:35-20:57)
Well it's in the constitution.
15. The actual bill was filed in 1992 and it took a while before anyone acted on it.
Why do you think this is so?
(cellphone feedback 21:18-21:23)
So I'm not really sure why nobody picked it up. I don't know maybe there wasn't enough
public interest groups. I don't know. I'm not sure.