We’ve Waited Enough: A Position Paper Regarding the Passage of Freedom of Information Bill
Hon. Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte, Jr.
House of Representatives of the Philippines
HOR Complex, Constitution Hills 1126
Quezon City, Philippines
After doing secondary research, we – Mary Grace B. Claveria and Erol Nathaniel G. Rico, third year BA in Communication students of Far Eastern University – has observed the House’ avoidance from or apathy towards undertaking necessary actions for the legislation of Senate Bill (SB) 1733 or the “People’s Freedom of Information Act of 2013.”
As can be seen in Figure 1, the Senate has already passed “its version of the Freedom of Information bill in third and final reading” on March 10, 2014, while the House of Representatives has never failed to make excuses in suspending its meetings for the said bill.
We are writing to express our opposition to the indifference of the lower chamber and want the committee to pay attention to the passage of SB 1733 which will require all public officials to disclose documents, records and transactions of public concern.
President Benigno ‘Ninoy’ Aquino III, during his campaign for Presidency, said that this FOI bill is “an integral element of the Aquino Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Plan of 2012-2016.” As “greater transparency, accountability, and citizen participation in governance” will be one of his initiatives in his term (Official Gazette).
Saying it could be an effort, but it seems the President failed to “prioritize” the bill in his early years of Presidency. “President’s third and latest SONA – as did his first and second – was deafeningly silent on whether or not his reported support for FOI is more real than just a press release (Malaluan, 2014).”
After several times of publicly voicing his trepidation that the “media has become too powerful (PCIJ),” the Palace stated that an FOI law is no longer needed because of the administration’s effort for transparency.
“I also want to point out that even without the enactment of an FOI bill by Congress, the government has already concretized many principles that uphold openness, transparency, full disclosure, and accountability of public officials,” Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma once said (Sabillo, 2014).
President Aquino propagated hope to the people. They were the ones hurt for this inconsistency that is why public clamor is created to pressure him. As how “The Right to Now! Right Now!” Coalition puts it:
“It cannot be ignored that this program needs an enabling law that will breathe life into the right of the people to ask for information aside from those already published. The proposed Freedom of Information Act responds to this by making clear what are included and what are the exceptions in this right, outlining how to ask and give information and what administrative or criminal liabilities would be imposed if it is violated.” (Dizon, 2014)
Legal framework is needed to set a standard procedure that state agencies should follow when citizens request documents (Malaluan, 2014). There is a need in institutionalizing transparency and accountability through a law for succeeding administrations (PCIJ, 2014). “The FOI bill must be passed so that our noteworthy good governance gains will be largely irreversible and sustained in subsequent administrations.” (Del Rosario, 2015)
Another argument that surrounds the passage of SB 1733 is its state of being “toothless” because of the Exceptions provided in its Section 7. Some of the exceptions are information that “ are authorized to be kept confidential under guidelines established by an Executive Order”, “consists of minutes or records of advice or of opinions expressed during decision-making or policy formulation”, “pertains to internal and/or external defense, law enforcement, and border control”, and “pertains to matters of human security… that such disclosure or premature disclosure will imperil our well-being or degrade the quality of life of our people.”
Kabataan Party-list Representative Terry Ridon said that he was not satisfied to Senate’s version of the bill as it is “full of restrictions”.
“It is sad to note that the yearning for recognition has clouded our fellow legislators’ judgment in today’s voting. While there is indeed a need for our nation to have a Freedom of Information Bill, what the committee has passed today is so watered-down and full of restrictions that it cannot even qualify as an FOI Bill, much less as a genuine one,” he said on an interview with Inquirer.net. (Arcangel, 2014)
While “the implementing rules of this law helped institute a system of promoting transparency of transactions and access to government information,” it still has limits of access (Mendoza, 2014). We need to recognize, it is by exceptions that the government can ensure protection of national security and public order against “bad social elements” and “irresponsible media.” These provisions do not make the bill “toothless,” instead, it will safeguard the State against abuse of FOI (Malaluan, 2014).
Through the arguments provided, we arrived to the following opinions: (1) the people’s right to information is provided by the 1987 Constitution Article III Section 6 and is included in Republic Act (RA) No. 6713 “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,” hence, it’s legislation deserves to receive utmost attention from the executive and legislative branch alike; (2) given the provided exceptions, it is certain that the bill will not hurt national security and public order, so legislators should be willing to pass an FOI law unless he or she is hiding an information that will jeopardize him or her personally; and (3) the passage of an FOI law will strengthen democracy in the country through an increase in the public’s interest for a better governance.
Firstly, the right to information, on the one hand, is mandated by the 1987 Constitution as stated in 1973 Constitution of Bill of Rights Section Seven:
Section 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.”
On the other hand, RA 6713 Section 4 obliges the public officials to provide the information demanded by public as part of their “Code of Ethics and Ethical Standards”:
(e) Responsiveness to the public. — Public officials and employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or when required by the public interest, public officials and employees shall provide information of their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country, especially in the depressed rural and urban areas.
The obligation of public officials and employees to make documents accessible to the public is clear. It is just appropriate that legislators should pay attention to bills that will institutionalize this because doing otherwise if defying human rights. Ethics is not enough to ensure transparency as public officials continue to find ways in unfailingly declining media’s requests for information (Mendoza, 2014).
Second, since national security and public order are protected by the Exceptions of the bill, we see no reason for legislators to not favor the passage of FOI law, unless they are afraid of disclosing anomalies that will personally jeopardize them.
It has been obvious that the House has been “employing several delaying techniques” to the discussion of FOI bill. Since the 15th Congress, “lack of interest in calling for hearings with regard to the FOI which had seriously hindered its passage” is already obvious (Guinmapang & San Jose, 2013).
Why is this so? Guinmapang and San Jose (2013) found out in their research that the House’ indifference could be because (1) “many of the contracts for the renovation and adding of facilities to the House have raised allegations of being ‘overpriced and negotiated,’” (2) “they will not allow the passage of a law that could put their dynasties in danger,” and (3) “they’re very sensitive to criticism” not like Senators who are in national limelight and do not gear transparency anymore.
“The FOI is among the Senate's priority measures this year even without presidential certification of the proposed measure as urgent… Senate Majority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano urged the House to follow the lead of the Senate and heed public clamor for the enactment into law of the FOI bill.” (Rappler.com, 2014)
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. (Guinmapang & San Jose, 2013)
Your honor, please prove us that you are not hiding something in the closet. For us, keeping the people off the information is blatantly confessing that you are not serving the country chastely and that FOI, for you, is a weapon that can cleave you to pieces.
As Communication majors, we strongly deem the lower chamber to do its part. The 16,235 online and nearly 22,000 onsite or offline petitions of the citizens (Dizon, 2014) is enough pressure for you to hear the desire of the people you “represent” in running the country. Do not make the people believe that you are doing the best you can to pass FOI “within the 16th Congress” when, in fact, there is no given time frame for its second reading and future amendments (Yap, 2015).
Transparency is pivotal in nation building. It is the citizens’ right to know and be part of the conversation. Former House Speaker Prospero Nograles said it, “When there is full public disclosure of all government transactions involving public interest, subject to limitations under the proposed Act, the people will have full confidence and trust in their public officials and therefore there will be effective governance.”
Freedom of Information is “a declared policy of the state to promote the meaningful and increased participation of the people in government decision-making and public accountability,” according to SB 1733.
Until there is FOI, democracy in the country remains a concept of hypocrisy.
Arcangel, X. (2014, November 24). House panel approves FOI bill. Retrieved March 21, 2015, from GMANetwork.com: www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/389530/news/nation/house-panel-approves-foi-bill/
Cayabyab, M. J. (2014, December 3). Leni Robredo urges adoptation of House FOI bill version. Retrieved March 9, 2014, from Inquirer.net: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/654464/leni-robredo-urges-adoption-of-house-foi-bill-version
CMFR. (n.d.). Freedom of Information. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility: http://www.cmfr-phil.org/freedom-of-information/
Del Rosario, R. J. (2015, March 4). Making Growth Inclusive - Priority Measures of the Business Community 2015-2016. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from The PCIJ Blog: http://pcij.org/blog/2015/03/04/a-bucket-list-for-pnoy-presidency-foi-mamasapano-reform-laws-etc
Dizon, N. (2014, July 20). Coalition demands to hear Aquino on freedom of information bill. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from Inquirer.net: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/623538/coalition-demands-to-hear-aquino-on-freedom-of-info-bill
Guinmapang, L. J., & San Jose, M. Z. (2013). The Press in a Democracy: A Comparative Historical Analysis of the Non-Passage of the Freedom of Information Act from 1992-2012. Manila: University of the Philippines.
Malaluan, N. (2014, July 18). Who are against the FOI bill? Retrieved March 9, 2015, from Rappler.com: http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/9713-who-are-against-the-foi-bill
Mendoza, G. B. (2014, July 27). Why the Philippines needs a freedom of information law. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from Rappler: http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/63794-why-philippines-needs-freedom-of-information-law
Official Gazette. (n.d.). Freedom of Information Bill. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from Official Gazette: http://www.gov.ph/foi/
PCIJ. (2014, July 1). Don't wait for 2016 to pass the FOI bill. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from The PCIJ Blog: http://pcij.org/blog/2014/07/01/dont-not-wait-for-2016-to-pass-the-foi-bill
Rappler.com. (2014, March 11). Senate passes FOI bill on final reading. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from Rappler.com: http://www.rappler.com/nation/52636-senate-foi-bill-third-reading
Sabillo, K. A. (2014, March 11). Aquino won't rush approval of FOI bill-Coloma. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from Inquirer.net: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/584419/aquino-wont-rush-approval-of-foi-bill-coloma
Senate of the Philippines. (2001). Legislative Process. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from Senate of the Philippines: https://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp
Yap, D. (2015, March 7). Belmonte confident FOI will advance 'within 16th Congress'. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from Inquirer.net: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/677329/belmonte-confident-foi-will-advance-within-16th-congress
titsay
izzy806
dailybridgerton
origamiaround
theartofmadeline
stormborns
ellievsbear
romaincrisis
discoholicmusic