No public information committee, no FOI bill By Christian V. Esguerra Philippine Daily Inquirer 5:33 am | Thursday, August 1st, 2013 MANILA, Philippines—Why is the House leadership dragging its feet in forming the committee on public information? Minority Leader Ronaldo Zamora believes the reason may be that the majority bloc remains uncertain about what it wants to do with a freedom of information (FOI) bill, or if it wants one at all. “I’m not sure that the majority is prepared to come up with a clear statement on whether they want the FOI or not,” said Zamora, noting that public information committee is expected to tackle only the FOI measure. “Until they are able to resolve that, you should not expect them to come up with a committee,” he said. But Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II denied that the delay in the formation of the public information committee had anything to do with the FOI bill. “Not true. Some committees really take time to form,” he said in a text message. Party-list House member Antonio Tinio (ACT Teachers), a supporter of the FOI bill, said the minority was willing to take the committee “if the majority is not yet ready.” Zamora pointed out that before setting up a committee, the majority has to first decide the policy. “If I were the majority, that’s exactly what I would be doing,” he said. The chairmanship and composition of the public information committee is deemed crucial to the fate of the FOI bill at the House of Representatives. In the last Congress, the measure’s advocates struggled to get it past the committee that was then headed by Rep. Ben Evardone, a member of President Aquino’s Liberal Party.
Transcript
No public information committee, no FOI bill
By Christian V. EsguerraPhilippine Daily Inquirer
5:33 am | Thursday, August 1st, 2013
MANILA, Philippines—Why is the House leadership dragging its feet in forming the committee on public information?
Minority Leader Ronaldo Zamora believes the reason may be that the majority bloc remains uncertain about what it wants to do with a freedom of information (FOI) bill, or if it wants one at all.
“I’m not sure that the majority is prepared to come up with a clear statement on whether they want the FOI or not,” said Zamora, noting that public information committee is expected to tackle only the FOI measure.
“Until they are able to resolve that, you should not expect them to come up with a committee,” he said.
But Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II denied that the delay in the formation of the public information committee had anything to do with the FOI bill.
“Not true. Some committees really take time to form,” he said in a text message.
Party-list House member Antonio Tinio (ACT Teachers), a supporter of the FOI bill, said the minority was willing to take the committee “if the majority is not yet ready.”
Zamora pointed out that before setting up a committee, the majority has to first decide the policy.
“If I were the majority, that’s exactly what I would be doing,” he said.
The chairmanship and composition of the public information committee is deemed crucial to the fate of the FOI bill at the House of Representatives.
In the last Congress, the measure’s advocates struggled to get it past the committee that was then headed by Rep. Ben Evardone, a member of President Aquino’s Liberal Party.
With strong pressure from the public, Evardone eventually sponsored a version of the bill in the plenary, but that was as far as it went.
MANILA, Philippines — The proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) bill that would give the public access to government records was approved by a joint panel in the Senate on Wednesday after holding only two hearings.
The first hearing was held by the committees on public information, civil service, and finance last September 4 while the second and final hearing was conducted at 10 a.m. this Wednesday.
Senator Grace Poe, head of the committee on public information, adjourned the hearing around 12 noon without saying whether the bill was approved or not. But when asked in a press conference about the status of the bill, she categorically said that it was already approved by the committees.
“Oo pasado na sa komite kasi meron na namang basic provisions na we really agree on (Yes it was passed in the committee level because there were basic provisions that we really agree on),” she said.
A committee report on the approved bill will now be routed to members of the committees for signature before it will be submitted for plenary debates.
Poe said they were “determined” to submit a committee report on the floor on September 24, sponsor it for plenary debates on September 25 and hopefully gets the approval of the chamber within the year.
Conspicuously missing in the approved measure, the senator said, is the controversial “right of reply” provision, which would mandate media organizations to allow officials to respond to reports that were obtained through the FOI requests.
“In all of the 11 submissions, resolutions and bills, walang right of reply akong nakita (I did not see a right of reply provision). But of course this is not to say that the lower house won’t entertain such a provision,” she said.
The senator said she was personally opposed to the provision.
“(I believe) in self-regulation. These are ethical standards that are already imposed on different (media) organizations that you have to be able to present both sides. E kung hindi ka naman gumagawa ng ganoon, alam naman ng tao kung papaniwalaan ka o hindi,” she said.
“Sa akin kasi (To me) that’s another form of censorship so I don’t want to dictate how news will be presented and how it will be taken as long as the access to information is there,” Poe added.
While the bill, if enacted into law, would allow access to government records, it also contains some exemptions and safeguards on information concerning national security, bargaining position of the country in international transactions or when it would jeopardize criminal investigation, among others.
On the issue on whether or not to declassify information, Poe said, “The court shall always favor the right to information.”
At the start of the hearing, Poe stressed the need to enact the bill into law.
“In our committee, one thing is clear—it is important now to enact into law the Freedom of Information or FOI bill. With this law, we can give every Filipino a chance and the power to actively participate in monitoring how the government spends public’s money,” she said.
Poe said alleged abuses in the government would have been prevented if the bill has long been passed in Congress.
The bill was approved in the Senate during the last Congress but failed to get the same approval at the House of Representatives.
Grace Poe stumped by Palace lack of interest in information billBy Norman BordadoraPhilippine Daily Inquirer
6:19 pm | Thursday, July 25th, 2013
MANILA, Philippines—The passage of the freedom of information bill obviously is not one of Malacañang’s priorities and the new chair of the Senate committee on public information wants to find out why through “heart-to-heart discussions” with President Benigno Aquino III’s official family.Sen. Grace Poe has said the enactment of an FOI measure was one of her priorities as chair of the information panel despite the administration’s apparent lack of interest in its passage.“I really want to conduct hearings on this [bill]. This is the backbone of public information,” Poe said during the weekly news forum at the Senate.Poe filed on Wednesday a resolution calling on the appropriate committees to conduct hearings on the proposed transparency measure.There are, at least, freedom of information bills pending in the Senate, including a direct initiative submitted by the Right to Know Right Now Coalition.“I don’t think there will much discussion but the cause that I would like to give attention to obviously is the side of Malacañang because there is no denying that it is not their priority measure and they have some reservations, and they filed their own version,” Poe said.The Senate passed FOI bills twice in the last two congresses. The House did not pass it this year and failed to ratify the version reconciled by the bicameral conference committee in 2010.Despite being a campaign promise of President Aquino’s in 2010 and Malacañang even drafting its own version in the past three years, the measure languished in the House committee on public information.Poe said she wanted to know what was behind Malacañang’s reservations “because the executive is a significant part of this whole process and the people had given President P-Noy an overwhelming mandate.”“We really also have to take into consideration what the President thinks about it. There are other points to ponder here,” Poe said. “Obviously, it’s not their passion but they’re also not doing anything to kill the bill.”Poe indicated it was important that an FOI measure be put in place to institutionalize access to government information before the Aquino administration bows out in 2016.“But it’s up to them to see if this is really something that they need to prioritize. What I think is that it is a safety (mechanism) for us, especially that in 2016, we will have a new administration. It’s better that we are able to have a guarantee that we have access to information,” Poe said.Besides the direct initiative filed by the people’s organizations, FOI bills were also filed in the 16th Congress by Senators Loren Legarda, Francis Escudero, Teofisto Guingona III, JV Ejercito and Alan Peter Cayetano.
WHEN THE 15th Congress opened last June, there seemed to be renewed energy toward passing the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which had floundered in the legislature’s previous incarnation, just when transparency advocates had thought it was about to be ratified.
In the House of Representatives, Quezon representative Lorenzo ‘Erin’ Tañada III, a staunch FOI advocate and a member of the Liberal Party, convened a technical working group to jumpstart the process. At the other end of the metropolis, the Senate committee on public information, chaired by Senator Gregorio Honasan, held a hearing to discuss the bill.
But the momentum to pass the measure has since fizzled and the Aquino administration’s flip-flop on the bill appears to be the main cause of the lack of legislative activity on it.
That flip-flop, in turn, apparently comes from wariness, if not fear, from within Malacañang that an FOI law would imperil the privacy of government officials and perhaps even put national security at risk.
This is even as Palace officials reiterate that the Aquino administration remains committed to transparency and good governance.
“Transparency doesn’t even require an FOI bill,” says Manuel L. Quezon III, Undersecretary of Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning. “Generally, (transparency means) are you willing to accommodate the questions that are brought by reporters or researchers, are you more forthcoming with your budget data, are you more liberal in terms of what sort are non-controversial items that can be immediately put online.”
As the Liberal Party standard bearer in the 2010 elections, then Senator Benigno Simeon ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III had promised that the FOI bill would be among his administration’s legislative priorities. He had also said that having a “force of law” was necessary for transparency in government to really take place.
‘Unreasonable requests’
Five months after Aquino took his oath as president, Secretary Herminio Coloma of the Presidential Communications Operations Office released a statement saying that the Malacañang had reservations about making the measure a priority, because government operations may be hampered by unreasonable requests for information.
By last February, despite appeals of FOI advocates, the bill was nowhere on the list of priority measures submitted by the Palace for the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC).
Today lawyer Nepomuceno Malaluan, spokesman of the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition of over 160 civil society groups, says, “While Congress has made initial advances at the committee level, we have seen that there has been a very visible slowing down of the legislative process after the Malacañang held back from including FOI among its list of priorities.”
Rough sailing
Senator Antonio Trillanes IV himself counts the bill among his legislative priorities, but concedes that it might face rough sailing even in the Senate without the Palace’s certification.
“This bill, no matter how important this is, will have to take a backseat and we will take the cue from the president,” he says. “(But) I’m going to give the president the leeway he needs in order to govern this country. If he feels, let’s say, national security or poverty alleviation will be the priority over transparency then I’m willing to give him that. “
Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda, meanwhile, has justified the exclusion by saying that Malacañang needed more time to study the FOI measure. Lacierda says that an “inter-agency committee” would be organized to look into the Palace’s concerns.
But the Palace hasn’t said anything much about the matter after that, leaving FOI advocates seriously worried. “We know that every day that the process does not move diminishes the opportunity to have the bill passed,” says Malaluan.
“Our experience in the last Congress is that as you approach the third year of the three-year term of Congress, it becomes more difficult to get the bill passed,” he said.
To be sure, there are laudable efforts by the administration to improve transparency and openness when it comes to public information. Secretary Jesse Robredo of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) oversees one of the most ambitious efforts of the Aquino administration to improve transparency in government: requiring full disclosure of all local government units (LGUs) of financial information.
12 documents
“For the LGUs,” says Robredo, “we (require the disclosure) of 12 documents, including the use of the economic development fund, procurement and budget statements, and even a document showing all the obligations of the LGUs as far as borrowings and amortizations is concerned. Last year, it was an initial effort; I think compliance was between 25 to 30 percent.”
Robredo says this kind of openness and transparency provides benefits to the citizens, both directly and indirectly.
“Let’s say, for instance, I publish a notice of bidding – this will serve as a benchmark to suppliers if they are interested in engaging with the LGU,” he says. “If I’m a supplier, I now know the benchmark of the cost in order supply material or equipment. Now the other constituents will be watchdogs; if
it is overpriced, then they will certainly know that it is overpriced. So what happens now is that you will have people with varied interest in the information provided, but this varied interest would ultimately (serve) the interest of the public.”
In 2010, the DILG issued a memorandum circular to encourage local governments to disclose these financial documents. This year, however, there is a provision in the General Appropriations Act that would actually require the local units to disclose the documents, and Robredo says that his department is willing to pursue legal sanctions against those who would refuse to comply.
Law would help
“I certainly think that the threat of legal action will significantly improve compliance,” he says. “In time, probably, there is no need for it. But inasmuch as this is the first step from the kind of system we had before, wherein at any given point in their term, any local official can get away with not disclosing how he or she had spent (public) money. So it might be good if, at least, it will be backed up by legal sanctions if they do not comply.”
In fact, having an FOI law in such a situation would be ideal. Because the proposed FOI act contains a provision of penalty for non-compliance, it would strengthen campaigns, such as the DILG’s, to improve transparency in government agencies. It would also define processes that would prevent government agencies from putting up arbitrary barriers involving the disclosure of public documents.
“There are a number of substantive and procedural gaps that can only be addressed by legislation,” says Malaluan. “One procedural gap is an absence of a uniform procedure for accessing in formation, so [requests] are handled differently across government agencies.”
The other side
TIME and getting thrown into the other side of the fence can change one’s perspectives somewhat.
Less than a year ago, Manuel L. Quezon III was a columnist and television analyst. Although he had worked earlier as a consultant for the presidential museum, there was no doubt where his heart lay when it came to the Freedom of Information Act.
In his column and blog, he cited quotes from an FOI advocate he had interviewed and fired broadsides against the leadership of the 14th Congress for resorting to “little stunts” to scuttle the FOI bill.
These included, Quezon wrote in a Jun. 5, 2010 blog post, the switching off of microphones to deny FOI authors voice and volume at the session hall, “mysterious text message urging congressmen not to show up at the House to prevent a quorum… a verified memorandum from the Secretary-General of the House urging committee staff to pack the galleries in anticipation of a mobilization by supporters of the FOI,” and “the publication of the House agenda placing the FOI at the bottom of its order of business, instead of first in line as befits a priority measure.”
“As it turned out,” wrote Quezon, now undersecretary of Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning, “the grim expectations of the supporters of the FOI were fulfilled when the session was gaveled to a close when the quorum was questioned.” This took place on the last
session day of the 14th Congress, which was partial to Aquino’s predecessor, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
The FOI advocate, Quezon added, “suggested that the House leadership had second thoughts because of the Law of Unintended Consequences… where a seemingly harmless but fashionable legislative proposal ended up scuttled because its implications started to sink in.” In other words, according to Quezon, “it’s scorched-earth complexed with sandbagging.”
Read more…
Cause of delay
Because of a lack of legislation, the government gets to determine what can be covered and not covered by the Constitution’s mandate of the right to information. “There’s a big amount of discretion that will be remedied by having a clear list of exceptions under this bill,” Malaluan says.
These exceptions are among the concerns being raised by the Palace preventing it from certifying the FOI bill as urgent. Says Quezon: “In every administration, there is always the intelligence community, it is always the national security community, and the defense community, and of course, the diplomatic arms of the government that are the most concerned, being very specific and particular in terms of disclosure, of what can be disclosed and when.”
This, according to Quezon, has been the cause of the delay in formulating the official Malacañang stand on the bill.
“These are the things that get a little slow, because the lawyers are being involved and they have to hammer it out,” he says. “This is both for the protection of the public, in terms of it legitimate rights, as well as of the state, in terms of, you don’t want to imperil your national security order, military and police operations, on the basis of haphazard disclosures.”
Overstated worries
But Trillanes, a former military man, says such concerns might be overstated.
“I believe the (armed forces) in general would welcome this bill because in the end it will be to their benefit,” says the senator, who was among the leaders in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny that stemmed from allegations of military corruption.
“Once you get rid of the culture of corruption in the bureaucracy,” he says, “now we can be more efficient on our use of our public funds, and that will result to having more benefit for the welfare of the soldiers, better equipment, and that can help them in accomplishing their mission. But of course if you’re talking about operational security, how they would conduct their military operations, it will be part of the exceptions in the Freedom of Information Bill.”
“Many of the concerns have been addressed already in the bill,” Malaluan says. “For some of the concerns that we feel might have been overlooked in the past legislative process, we have expressed our openness to revisit some of these issues, we have submitted our petition papers, we have supported the study made by Rep. Tañada who was the technical working group committee chairman in the House of the Representatives addressing some of the concerns.”
Malaluan says that he and his fellow FOI advocates have remained open to a dialogue with the Palace. Undersecretary Quezon, for his part, says that Malacañang also wants to continue the conversation on the bill.
“The President directed at the start of this year that we engage in substantive discussions with freedom of information advocates and with those who have been proposing legislation in Congress,” he says.
In an interview with PCIJ, Quezon recalls with relish a meeting two months ago between the Communications Group and the FOI advocates. “As early as February,” he recounts, “we met with the freedom of information coalition people and we had a frank and open discussion, and I think a very good one. This led in turn to other discussions within the government so that we could hammer out our positions and areas of concerns that we had engaged in, in terms of the dialogue. “
Sunny picture?To the Palace then, things are still looking sunny with the FOI bill. “It’s been moving quite well,” says Quezon. “There have been several meetings on this core. And the question will then become ‘What sort of engagement will the President have?’”
In Quezon’s book, the Palace precisely wants to reconnect with the advocates soon. “There has to be a final agreement,” he says. “We’ll be going back, for example, to the proponents of the Freedom of Information act having gotten our positions together and we’ll be engaging in a little more dialogue.
What the Palace needs is more time for more discussions, he says. “The objective here,” Quezon says, “is that once a general agreement is reached, it will enable speedier and smoother passage once all the parties have basically reached an understanding.”
The undersecretary, however, declines to say when Malacañang would be able to come out with a clear-cut position on the FOI bill that would address its concerns. He does note, though, that the process has “moved substantially forward.”
Unfortunately, with time slowly running out once again on the FOI bill, advocates say “moving substantially forward” just won’t cut it.
“We are really quite anxious and apprehensive that any further delay of the legislative process might jeopardize our ability to have this bill finally passed into law in the 15th Congress,” says Malaluan. “We believe that at this point the Aquino administration must really state where it stands on the bill so that the citizens will not be left hoping and hanging, giving them the benefit of the doubt for so long. We believe that it’s about time that the Aquino administration already declares where it stands exactly on the passage of the Freedom of Information Act.”
Robredo says his principal is still committed to the passage of the FOI bill.
“I’m quite certain that, as a matter of principle, he would like transparency and accountability to be promoted,” he says. “I think it should be prioritized, I think this administration is prioritizing it. We just need to fine-tune it, so that once we say this is it, then we are ready.” – With reporting by Ed Lingao, Stephanie Directo, Krystal Jimena, and Essen Miguel, PCIJ, May 2011
BY THE PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
THURSDAY, JULY 28TH, 2011
Last of Two Parts
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 a Freedom of Information (FOI) law.
Yet while even President Benigno Simeon ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III himself seems unsure just how much he wants his government to be transparent, the World Bank, a solicitous donor of the Aquino administration, recently released a document that explicitly proposed that the government “put forward a Freedom of Information Act for legislative approval.”At the same time, the latest results of a transparency and accountability drive of the Department of the Interior and Local Governments (DILG) show local governments outside of Metro Manila outperforming those in the National Capital Region.
Not one of the dozens of local governments that has so far been cited by the DILG as being “ehemplo” or good examples in planning, sound fiscal management, transparency and accountability, and valuing performance information came from Metro Manila.
A recent audit conducted by PCIJ revealed poor performance by Metro Manila local governments – more than half of which are headed by Aquino’s partymates and political allies – in fulfilling citizen requests for specific documents on the most basic services.
Most made accessing documents imbued with public interest a serious test of patience, stamina, resources, and will, with many ignoring deadlines for action imposed on them by law.
DILG honor roll
Not surprisingly, not one Metro Manila local government unit (LGU) has made it to the DILG’s latest “Good Housekeeping” honor roll that lists those from Anilao, Iloilo; Balete, Aklan; Balilihan and Catigbian in Bohol; Damulog, Bukidnon; Datu Paglas, Maguindanao; Leon B. Postigo and Tampilisan in Zamboanga del Norte; Pitogo, Quezon; Mobo, Masbate; Naawan, Misamis Oriental; San Agustin, Surigao del Sur; Santol, La Union; and Sto. Domingo, Albay.
Just last March, the DILG also cited 15 high-performing LGUs, mostly from Mindanao, “good housekeeping” such as those in Alilem in Ilocos Sur; Quezon, Isabela and Saguday in Quirino; Mataas na Kahoy in Batangas; Camaligan in Camarines Sur; Banaue and Lagawe in Ifugao; Amlan in Negros Oriental; Maribojoc in Bohol; Kawayan in Biliran; Calamba in Misamis Occidental; Dujali in Davao del Norte; Cagwait and Carrascal in Surigao del Sur, and San Jose in Dinagat Islands.
These LGUs, according to DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo, have had “no adverse” report from the Commission on Audit.
The uneven observance of transparency and accountability across LGUs – and government agencies – lingers apparently because of the absence of uniformed and clear procedures on how public officials should respond to citizen requests for documents vested with public interest that a Freedom of Information Act should have offered.
In fact, just a few weeks before President Aquino delivered his second State of the Nation Address in which FOI was among the most striking omissions, the World Bank had weighed in on the issue that civil-society organizations and some of Aquino’s allies deem of utmost importance for good governance.
The Bank last month put forth in a 349-page “Philippines Discussion Notes: Challenges and Options for 2010 and Beyond” a vigorous recommendation for Aquino to see after the passage of the FOI Act if he so wishes to achieve “inclusive growth,” as well as stamp out corruption and poverty in the land.
Big challenges
The document produced by the Philippines Country Team, World Bank and The International Finance Corporation East Asia and Pacific Department, noted that the Aquino administration “faces significant opportunities as well as considerable challenges: an opportunity for new policy directions and new coalitions to push the development agenda forward with renewed vigor, but a need to overcome the inertial forces that slow down decision making and program implementation during a transition.”
The authors said the document aims “to support the creation of a shared focus among government, civil society, business groups, and development partners on the key elements of a long-term development strategy focused on inclusive growth.”
“Deliberately selective in their coverage, the Notes offer sectoral and thematic analyses to identify key challenges, and recommend a prioritized set of actions for consideration by the new government” yet also “draws on extensive international experience and worldwide best practices, as well as past experience with what works well in the Philippines and what does not,” the authors said.
They then pointed out that in the Philippines, “breaking down the hold that vested interests have over governance requires action on multiple fronts.”
Strong signal
The authors argued: “The Administration could contribute significantly to governance reform by putting up for legislative approval a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, as neighboring countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and India have done over the last decade. In addition to being an integral part of an open governance system, the Act would also send a strong signal that the government is committed to transparency.”
Nonetheless, even before the law is passed, the World Bank document said, “the President could immediately ensure the highest standards of public disclosure in the Executive branch of government through an Executive Order.”
Aside from stressing the need for the FOI Act to be passed, the Bank also exhorted Aquino to “select a strategic agency widely perceived to be corrupt and launch a comprehensive reform plan” to provide “a credible, though not necessarily easy, starting point for a government’s anti-corruption campaign.”
Obama project
Interestingly, despite its reticence to state clearly its position on the FOI bill, Malacañang has unfurled its efforts to promote greater transparency on the world stage.
Since mid-2010, the Aquino administration, represented by Budget and Management Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad, has signed on to and, in fact, now sits on the steering committee of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a multilateral, eight-country initiative launched by US President Barack Obama.
Obama’s project supposedly aims “to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.”
Under the OGP, the signatory states have committed to produce results along four benchmarks – disclosure of budget documents, disclosure of asset records of public officials, passage of an FOI Act, and engagement between government and civil-society groups.
By the admission of some Cabinet members themselves, the Aquino government may claim to have achieved some progress on the first two OGP benchmarks; on the last two, little or no progress at all.This has prompted the Bantay FOI! Sulong FOI! network of 157 civil society groups and individuals to remark: “Malacañang must understand: Its desire to assume an honored place on the world stage as one of the leading lights of transparency in the world will not fly, unless it commits to the immediate passage of the FOI Act in the Philippines.”
Practical tips
In the meantime, the seven college student interns who helped conduct PCIJ’s audit of transparency regimes in Metro Manila have drawn up some practical tips for those who may want to access information from LGUs in the absence of an FOI law:
Put your request in writing. Most local governments require requests for information be put in writing. Many also want the request to contain the name of the person or agency making the request, as well as the purpose for the request. The City of Navotas, for instance, even has a memorandum that explicitly asks for these.
Verify beforehand which department would be handling your specific request. Otherwise, one may well be passed from office to another, and then from one personnel to another. To save time and spare one of fits of frustration, check the LGU’s website first to see which
office or official would be best to handle the request, or call or visit the LGU’s information office before writing and submitting your request letter.
Note the name and position of the staff member who received the request. Misplaced letters and sudden attack of amnesia abound in LGUs when follow-ups are made regarding requests for information. To avoid being passed around from one staff member to another, one should record right away the name of the personnel who received the request and, if possible, that person’s contact number. It may also be wise to do this in his or her presence, with other staff members as witnesses.
Check beforehand for dress codes, as well as specific protocols and procedures. Such information is usually available on the LGU’s website. One can also call the LGU prior to submitting the letter of request. Some LGUs do have uniform procedures and processes. Parañaque, for example, requires that all letters of request be addressed to the mayor first for approval. In Marikina, guards bar those in shorts and/or slippers from entering its city hall.
Be aware of the time limit imposed by law on LGUs to comply with requests for information. Remind LGU personnel as well of such deadlines since they may not be aware of it themselves. Under the law, LGUs are given10 working days to act on requests for Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) and 15 working days to act on requests for all other types of documents.
Do follow-up calls. This will not only alert LGU personnel of your continued interest in your request, but will also remind them constantly of the need for them to act on it. If there is some delay, ask the reason for it; it may well be that the next step requires another letter to another office. Always ask the name of the staff handling the call, so that there is a “personnel trail” established while you track the progress of your request.
Once the documents are provided, double check if these contain all the information requested. Just because an LGU hands over a hefty volume of paper does not mean those data sets have all that you asked for. Go over the documents before leaving the city or town offices. If there is any information lacking, ask why. It could well be that another office is responsible for a particular piece of data that had been part of your request.
An incomplete response calls for a follow-up letter. Should there be no response within the period set by law, submit a follow-up letter reminding the LGU of your request – as well as the LGU’s duty to act on it within the legal deadline. (After receiving such a follow-up letter from PCIJ interns, the Office of the Mayor of Muntinlupa called within the day to say that the information could be had from the City Planning and Development Office.)
Be nice and keep your cool. It may be the LGU’s duty to serve the public, but any transaction is easier to accomplish when the atmosphere is kept pleasant. For sure, a smiling citizen’s request is more likely to be processed quickly while a demand that comes with a snarl is bound to be treated with contempt and left unattended as a result. – With additional research by Anne Jeanette O. Priela, Krystal Kay S. Jimena, David Faustino T. de
Castro, Essen Mei M. Miguel, Henor G. Gotis, Eric H. Rivera, and Stephanie Directo, PCIJ, July 2011
WHAT follows is an account of PCIJ’s correspondences with the Office of the Secretary General and the Records Management Service of the House of Representatives, which as discussed in PCIJ’s story yesterday denied the release of the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) and personal data sheet (PDS/CV) of the members of the 15th Congress.
The Office of the Secretary General is the repository agency of the SALNs of the members of the House of Representatives as provided in Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) and the Civil Service Commission’s Resolution No. 060231.
Sept. 6, 2010PCIJ Research Director Karol Ilagan sent a letter to Secretary-General Marilyn B. Yap, requesting for (a) the 2008 and 2009 SALN and PDS/CV of the 14th Congress House members, and (b) 2010 SALN (upon assumption) and PDS/CV of the 15th Congress House members. PCIJ also sent an accomplished Request Form as required by the Secretary General’s office. The request was also made as a follow-up to PCIJ’s previous requests dated October 14, 2009 and May 19, 2010.
Sept. 28, 2010Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to follow up on the request. She was told that the letter was forwarded to Legal (office) on Sept. 6.
Jan. 18, 2011Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office. Ilagan was asked to visit the House of Representatives and meet with Emily, a staff employee at the Office of the Secretary General.
Feb. 10, 2011Ilagan, along with then PCIJ Senior Researcher Che de los Reyes, visited the Office of the Secretary General upon Emily’s advice that PCIJ talk to a director. Ilagan and de los Reyes spoke with Director Roberto P. Maling who said that he will check with Secretary General Yap on the status of PCIJ’s request. He promised to call the same day. He called at around 7 pm. De los Reyes talked to him. Maling asked PCIJ to send another letter stating a “more specific” reason why it needs the SALNs. He sounded very apologetic. PCIJ’s Sept. 6, 2010 letter indicated that it is requesting the said documents for “purposes of research.”
Feb. 17, 2011PCIJ sent a revised letter upon Maling’s instruction that a “more specific” reason be cited. In the Feb. 17, 2011 letter signed by Ilagan and PCIJ’s Executive Director Malou Mangahas, PCIJ recounted the requests it had previously made to the Office of the Secretary General. It also said that as an
independent media agency, it was requesting for copies of the documents “for research and reporting purposes.” As well, the request was made so PCIJ could update its library files of the SALNs and PDS of government officials and employees. An accomplished Request Form was attached to the letter.
A copy of the letter was furnished to House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., House Committee on Public Information Chair Rep. Ben Evardone, Civil Service Commission Chairman Francisco Duque, and then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.
A staff employee of the Civil Service Commission, upon receipt of PCIJ’s Feb. 17, 2011 letter, called Ilagan; the CSC staff said that she would check if CSC has filed of the House members’ SALN.
Feb. 22, 2011Director Maling of the Office of the Secretary General called and said that PCIJ’s request was being granted. He said that PCIJ should coordinate with Atty. Ricardo Bering of the Records Management Service in order to have the SALNs and CVs photocopied. Ilagan then called Bering to arrange for a meeting the following day. Bering agreed to see Ilagan the next day in the morning.
Feb. 23, 2011Ilagan and de los Reyes went to the office of Bering, who seemed to act as if he and Ilagan did not talk the previous day. He even had to call Director Maling of the Secretary General’s office. Eventually, Bering approved the release of the 2008 and 2009 SALNs. Ilagan asked about the 2010 SALNs, which was included in the request. Bering said that the 2010 SALNs were not yet available. Ilagan pointed out that the 2010 SALNs referred to in the request refers to the July 2010 or the SALN upon assumption of the House members. Bering said 2010 means “as of December 2010.” Bering made this assertion even if the request was dated Sept. 6, 2010.
Bering asked Ilagan to send another letter-request for the July 2010 or the upon-assumption SALN. Ilagan and de los Reyes arranged for the photocopying of the 2008 and 2009 SALNs at MAA, a photocopying service/station just outside Bering’s office.
Ilagan and de los Reyes then went to Maling’s office to clarify the 2010 SALN request. Maling said that another request should just be made. As for the CVs, he said he would follow this up with Human Resources. He also said that if the 2008 and 2009 CVs were with Records, then these should be provided. Ilagan and de los Reyes went back to Bering and told him what Maling said.
Feb. 24, 2011PCIJ sent a new request-letter along with the Request Form to Secretary General Yap, following instructions from Bering and Maling.
Feb. 28, 2011De los Reyes got a text from Tyrone of MAA (photocopying service), saying that the SALNs were ready for pick up. Ilagan then asked a PCIJ intern to go the following day and get the documents.
Mar. 1, 2011The PCIJ intern went to Records but the documents were not immediately released to her; the documents would be released only to Ilagan. Ilagan phoned Bering, who asked if the intern was authorized to get the documents. He also asked Ilagan to send an authorization letter. Ilagan sent an
authorization letter. The intern was then able to get the 2008 and 2009 SALNs upon payment of P4,065. Still pending are the 14th and 15th Congress members’ CV and the July 2010 SALNs and the December 2010 SALNs, which should be available after the April 30 deadline.
Mar. 3, 2011Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to make a follow-up. She was told that the letter was still with Legal, where it had been since Feb. 24.
Mar. 9, 2011Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to make another follow-up. Emily said that Ilagan should ask Bles of Legal. Ilagan phoned Bles of Legal. Bles said that the request was still being processed. “May process kasi (There is a process),” she said. She added that a response was still being prepared.
Mar. 21, 2011Ilagan called Legal to make a follow-up. Chona of Legal told Ilagan to call again after lunch because the person concerned had stepped out. Ilagan received mail from Rep. Maximo Rodriguez of Abante Mindanao that contained his July 2010 SALN.
Mar. 24, 2011Ilagan called Legal to make a follow-up. Bles said the request had already been transferred to the Secretary General’s office. Ilagan then called the Office of the Secretary General. Emily said that Ilagan should talk to Director Maling.
Mar. 28, 2011Ilagan phoned Director Maling. Maling asked Ilagan to call back because he was still looking for the file.
Mar. 29, 2011Ilagan called Maling, who said the request was “okay.” He advised Ilagan to call Atty. Bering of Records. Ilagan talked to Hans Cortez of Records. Cortez said he would call back. He did not.
Apr. 4, 2011Ilagan called Bering of Records. Bering said that there was still “no action taken” on PCIJ’s request. He said the files of the July 2010 SALN were not complete. He insisted that PCIJ should just get the December 2010 SALNs because these should almost be the same with the July 2010 SALNs.
Ilagan then called Emily of the Secretary-General’s office who said that the reply pertaining to the approval of the request was sent to Records on Mar. 15. Ilagan called Cortez of Records. Cortez said that Records did not receive any reply, but that he would check and call back. He did not call back.
Apr. 19, 2011House of Representatives was closed for the entire week.
Apr. 25, 2011Ilagan called the Records Management Service. Cortez said he received the Mar. 15 letter. But he said he was told by Bering that only the December 2010 SALNs would be provided because the difference is just months from the upon assumption or July 2010 SALN. Cortez also said that he was just following orders. Ilagan called again to talk to Bering, but he was not available.
Apr. 26, 2011Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to clarify things. Jane said the copy of the letter with the signature and approval of Secretary General Yap was already with Records so that’s where PCIJ should coordinate. She said the Office of the Secretary-General had already approved it.
Ilagan then called the Records Management Service. Bering was in a meeting.
Ilagan called again and was able to speak to Bering. According to Bering, it was Maling of the Secretary General’s office who said that only the December 2010 SALNs should be released. Bering said he did not see the letter with Yap’s approval.
Ilagan then called Maling. Maling asked Ilagan to give him until the next Tuesday so he could check what happened; he could then give PCIJ the right response. He said PCIJ was not the only one with a request so the “baka sala-salabat na ang response.” He also said he was not sure anymore because there were many transactions at hand. Still, Maling said that the Speaker might have also given an instruction.
May 4, 2011Ilagan called Maling who said that he would ask Bering. Maling then called Ilagan and said that the documents would not be released. He said the his office could only issue a summary of the SALNs of the House members. He said the process was “tedious” and “huhugutin bawat isa.” Ilagan told Maling that perhaps Records could keep a separate file for photocopying in order to keep the original files in tact. Maling said that RG Cruz of ABS-CBN also made a request and that he would tell him the same. Ilagan told Maling that she will send another request. Maling said that in the future, the House of Representatives will only provide a summary of the assets, liabilities, and net worth of the House members and not the actual copies of the document. When asked why the 2008 and 2009 SALNs were released, Maling said, “Ginawan lang ng paraan ‘yung dati.” He also said, “I hope you understand.”
Dec. 19, 2011PCIJ sent a letter to Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., requesting a copy of the SALNs of the members of the prosecution panel and the rest of the members of the 15th Congress. The letter, which was signed by Ilagan and Mangahas, also recounted the previously denied requests with the Office of the Secretary General. A copy of the letter was furnished Secretary General Yap.
Director Maling called PCIJ office around 4:30 pm. Ilagan answered the phone and greeted him “Magandang hapon (Good afternoon).” Maling said (not exact words), “Mukhang ‘di maganda ang hapon, nabasa ko itong letter mo.” Ilagan told Maling that the letter was actually addressed to Tupas. He said, “Sonagsend kayo kay Cong. Tupas?” Ilagan said yes.
Maling said that if PCIJ wants the SALN of the members of prosecution panel, Ilagan should fill out and send the SALN request form, like before. Ilagan said that she can do that and send the form by fax. Maling said his office needs the original copy. He also said that PCIJ would have to pay for the reproduction cost. Ilagan said this should be okay because PCIJ always carries the reproduction cost for SALN requests.
Maling then told Ilagan (not exact words): “Akala ko ba okay na tayo dati na summary na lang.” Ilagan said, “Sir, if you would remember, we did not agree to just having the summary. I’ve told you
that we’ll not stop and we’ll send another request.” Then Maling said PCIJ’s reason was “manipis.” He said that if the SALNs were needed for a database, then the summary should be okay. He said that his office did not mean to hold the documents. (The reasons PCIJ stated were for “research and reporting purposes” and to “update PCIJ’s library files.”)
Maling then asked why PCIJ needs the actual documents. Ilagan told Maling that the SALN is a public document and PCIJ needs the details of the assets, for example, not just a total figure. He mentioned “manipis” again and said that in law, disclosure of the SALN is not just for “whatever” legal purpose. He said that it’s “not absolute.” Then, Ilagan explained to him again why PCIJ needs the SALNs. Maling said that PCIJ should submit again the Request Form. Ilagan then asked about SALNs of the rest of the members of the 15th Congress. Maling said that this should be included in Request Form.
Dec. 20, 2011Ilagan sent Maling a clarificatory letter, saying that there is no need to send yet another Request Form because PCIJ has already complied with this before.
Dec. 21, 2011Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to make a follow-up. Lito said Maling was already on vacation/leave. Ilagan was told to call in January 2012.
Jan. 3, 2012Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to make a follow-up. Emily said Maling was not in the office. She said that the letter had been forwarded to Legal.
Jan. 12, 2012Ilagan called Legal to make a follow-up. Bles of Legal told Ilagan to call again because the person concerned (Deputy Secretary) stepped out.
From September 2010 to December 2011, PCIJ made a total of 28 calls and sent four letters to the Office of the Secretary General to obtain copies of the July 2010 (upon assumption) and December 2010 SALNs of the 15th Congress members and the CVs and PDS of 14th Congress and 15th Congress members. As of this writing, these have yet to be released by the repository agency. – PCIJ, January 2012
FREEDOM of expression (FOE) and freedom of information (FOI) are closely intertwined, fundamental rights of the people, not just in the Philippines but also in all democracies of the world. Like two peas in a pod, these rights are spelled out in the same breath in international human rights laws, which the Philippines has signed on to and ratified.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirms: “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.”
In the Philippines, the same twin rights are expressly and distinctly guaranteed under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, among other protections against abuse of the pervasive powers that have been entrusted to government. It is never a waste of words to quote them:
Article III, Section 4: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Article III, 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.”
Cybercrime Law: Flawed provisions
However, on 12 September 2012, President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III signed into law Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
By its subject, the law was crafted to address criminal acts committed through the expedient of cyberspace (i.e., fraud, child pornography, and theft of proprietary information). However, the law also contains several provisions that diminish and restrict freedom of expression over cyberspace, prompting vigorous protest from citizens, netizens, and journalists, and no less than 11 constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court.
The problem started during the law's period of interpellation/amendments in the Senate, with the insertion of the provision on libel of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The provision, which appears as Section 4c, paragraph 4 (Cybercrime Offenses: Content-Related Offenses) reads: “Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the
RPC, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.”
Article 355 of the RPC refers to committing libel “by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.”
By itself, the provision may have been inserted apparently to answer, through the legislative route, the hanging question of whether the requirement for publicity in libel can be committed online.
In truth, the Supreme Court has had no opportunity as yet to rule squarely on the issue. While a case (Bonifacio et al. vs RTC, GR No. 184800, May 5, 2010) filed by the Yuchengco family against planholders of the Pacific Plans, Inc. for libel allegedly committed through articles published on the respondents’ website reached the Supreme Court, the decision was confined to the issue of venue for the criminal action in the lower court.
But taken together with other provisions, the Cybercrime Law did much more than to expressly declare that libel may be committed online.
First, Section 6, in effect, provides that libel committed online shall be imposed a penalty one degree higher than other forms of libel. As RPC libel is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months), online libel will be punishable by prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum (4 years two months and one day to 8 years).
Second, Section 19 grants the Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to restrict or block access to computer data that it finds prima facie to be in violation of the provisions of the Cybercrime Law. Thus, when the DOJ finds prima facie evidence that online libel has been committed, it shall issue an order to restrict or block access to the allegedly libelous material, and to take down the website where such material was posted.
These sections are among the provisions that are now being challenged by various parties before the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
In his petition before the tribunal, Senator Teofisto Guingona III asserts that Section 6 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. He argues that “it (Cybercrime Law) unduly discriminates (against) persons of the same class, as it penalizes the act of publishing libelous materials through Internet more heavily than those which are committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.”
Additionally, the petitions filed separately by Melencio Sta Maria et al. and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) et al. assert that Section 19 constitutes unreasonable seizure as it dispenses with the requirement for a judicial warrant.
NUJP et al. argues that “(T)he power to ‘restrict or block access to computer data’ amounts to a seizure of property which is reserved to a judge under Article III, Section 2; notably, it is also a power that can only be exercised after the issuance of a warrant.”
Beyond these constitutional infirmities, these provisions of the Cybercrime Law, ultimately and clearly, work to infringe freedom of expression in cyberspace.
Section 19, empowers the Executive department through the DOJ to restrain online expression through its “restrict and block” powers. Not only is it able to do so without need of judicial intervention; it should also be noted that the threshold for prosecuting libel is low, given Section 354 of the RPC, which provides in part that “(E)very defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious.”
Thus, finding prima facie basis to exercise the “restrict and block” powers becomes doubly easy. This will work to restrain the continued publicity of many ideas, opinions, and comments alleged to be libelous and prosecutable given the presumption of malice, even if these will later on be judicially determined as not constituting libel, that is, they are in the end protected speech/expression.
Also, imposing a much higher minimum penalty for libel committed online (4 years two months and one day versus 6 months for libel by other means) will have a notable chilling effect on Internet users, which as of the latest reliable count comes up to 33.6 million Filipinos, including 27.2 million Facebook users.
The long and short of it: The Cybercrime Law spooks over 1 in every 3 Filipinos with threat of cruel punishment, even as they seek only to exercise their inalienable freedoms under the Constitution.
The Cybercrime Law becomes particularly onerous in a society where cyberspace has become an accessible tool and the preferred platform of citizens to comment, criticize, and engage in the public discourses on matters of public interest, particularly governmental issues.
The Cybercrime law poses clear and present danger of significant curtailment of freedom of expression, the specter of a very high penalty should one be convicted of online libel. Section 6 works to discourage even ideas, comments and opinion that do not and may not constitute libel at all — again protected speech and expression.
The Cybercrime Law posits fear and punishment as the antidote to the citizens’ exercise of freedom of expression, which the Constitution and jurisprudence guarantee should not be abridged, no matter rambunctious, profane, bold, impious, impudent, rude, or cheeky.
FOI Law: No push from P-Noy
But more than just a bad law, RA 10175 betrays official sarcasm and indifference to two popular and long-overdue advocacies of human rights groups and citizens – to decriminalize libel and to pass the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.
By all indications, the 15th Congress and the Executive under President Aquino have chosen to ignore these advocacies even as they had favored the Cybercrime Law with quicker action and firmer resolve.
The proposal to decriminalize libel has been submitted by the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee (HRC) in line with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines ratified on 23 October 1986.
In General Comment No. 34 adopted at its 102nd session (Geneva, 11-29 July 2011), the UNHRC called on states parties to “consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.”
The same HRC General Comment states:
To give effect to the right of access to information, States parties should proactively put in the public domain Government information of public interest. States parties should make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective and practical access to such information. States parties should also enact the necessary procedures, whereby one may gain access to information, such as by means of freedom of information legislation. The procedures should provide for the timely processing of requests for information according to clear rules that are compatible with the Covenant. Fees for requests for information should not be such as to constitute an unreasonable impediment to access to information. Authorities should provide reasons for any refusal to provide access to information. Arrangements should be put in place for appeals from refusals to provide access to information as well as in cases of failure to respond to requests.
These standards are exactly what the proposed Freedom of Information Act seeks to institutionalize by legislation. But it remains languishing particularly at the House Committee on Public Information, whose chairman has pointed to FOI not being among the President’s priority as a key reason for his refusal to move on the measure.
To make matters worse, not only did Congress and the Executive take the contrary route on libel, they have also continued to withhold the passage of the FOI Act, a 14-year advocacy of various sectors that actually antedate the filing of the first cybercrime bills by at least six years.
People's just demands
The unconstitutional provisions of the Cybercrime Law cannot be cured by any measure of the most carefully crafted implementing rules and regulations.
Thus far, only the major provisions infringing on freedom of expression have elicited protest. But many other provisions of the law have been questioned, too, for violating the right to privacy and the proscription against double jeopardy. In addition, the law imposes the same draconian penalties for various types of minor and major cybercrimes. For instance, it declares all forms of computer hacking, regardless of extent of damage or perversity of criminal intent, punishable by prision mayor (imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years).
The effective remedy is for Congress to repeal the Cybercrime Law, or for the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional. Congress can then enact a new cybercrime law, or one that would clearly define cybercrimes, impose proportional penalties, and cut no corners with the Bill of Rights.
For this to happen, the committee process in Congress should also involve all stakeholders, and not just the usual national security hawks, BPO investors, or political crybabies, such as what had happened on the way to the morphing of the Cybercrime Law at bar.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court would do well to immediately grant the common prayer of the 11 petitioners against the law for a temporary restraining order.
Finally, Congress and President Aquino should, as quickly as they moved on the Cybercrime Law, now make good on their promise, and fulfill their duty under the Constitution, to pass the Freedom of Information Act.
All it takes is sincerity and political will to make that happen. And in the nick of time, the FOI Act may still see the light of day in the 15th Congress, even as the Cybercrime Law is eventually returned to the drawing boards.
That would be the best result for all: Pass the FOI Law now to guarantee the bounds of our inalienable rights and freedoms. Discuss with all stakeholders the clear, reasonable, lawful grounds and limits of a new Cybercrime Law. – Institute for Freedom of Information, 8 October 2012
