as announced in class, the opinion can be posted here in the comments section either as embedded paragraphs, or a pasted hyperlink leading to the student’s site where the opinion is written — with the student’s real name, or pseudonym, or student number (in case of use of a pseudonym, the student should inform the dept assistant). The assignment can also be emailed.
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
TALUSAN, IRISH JANE L.
2013 – 79599
M230 – MA Media Studies
University of the Philippines Diliman
As a 17th century French philosopher René Descartes puts “To think, therefore I am”, in my belief, emanates from knowing that something needs to be known then to be thought about and perhaps to be acted upon. If Aristotle says that human beings are apart from animals and plants for having a rational soul, well that excludes instant knowledge for it is to be sought and to be given.
That to me is the essence of our constitutional right to know as stated in the Section 7, Article III of our 1987 Philippine Constitution. People should be given information for them to think about. As for what action they might do about it should not be assumed to the point of prohibition and when people are constantly provided information, people gets interested to seek more. A law on the right of information must first focus on capturing the curiousness of its men.
This also, to me, is the reason why the Freedom of Information law in the country is still floating in the country for more than two decades now. We have created a culture of fear from seeking and giving information. Reviewing the FOI timeline posted in the online site of Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the advancement of Freedom of Information since the first FOI bill of the late 2nd district Camarines Sur Representative Raul Roco in 1987 has been very slow. I have always believed that the postponement of the first try is a bad sign for the fulfillment of the next. That particular bill should have been acted upon since it was still “fresh” then, after that, the necessity of a bill lessens.
As early as 1993, FOI advocacy groups arose, which means there is needed reiteration. It was only in 1998 – 2001 that there happens advancement in its passing but still not a very successful one. From that on, numerous bills have been proposed. For a simple citizen like me, I don’t see the necessity of these. Do numerous proposals push hard the implementation? Or it merely seeks attention but only prolong the process? Prolonging the process seems to make more sense to me. I have also questioned what if the authorship of these is on the purpose of merely proposing because of the urge but no plans toward the perfect implementation?
Then suddenly we saw the glimpse of hope in the present administration of Benigno Aquino III, son of Ninoy Aquino who has been an image of fighting for the truth and who is also a journalist. Ninoy definitely would be interested in Freedom of Information. However, the FOI has always been left out in the President’s State of the Nation Addresses considering that the attention given to the content of the every SONA is competed by the outfit of attendants. This means, as I estimate it, 90 percent of the Philippine population not knowing on this pending law, or more so in this inherited right from the constitution. Ironic to think that people does not know that there is actually a right to know.
If FOI is a person, it could have exclaimed that is has been patient for so long. Has been giving to other bills to be prioritized and considerate with the Christmas breaks, lack of quorum or whatever excuse it can receive for 28 years now. And because the people have lived without it for the past decades, it now questions, “Am I still needed?”
But a right is a right. Regardless if we can live without it or not, it should be recognized and enjoyed free of the perception of being too late.
First, I would like to question the Section 3. Coverage. of the House version. It generally stated that “This Act shall cover government agencies.” followed by the enumeration of what the government agencies are followed by the inclusion of the “government-owned or controlled corporations”. I am interested in this particular part since I was for IBC13, a government sequestered corporation. We are active in the programs of the Government and we have constant participation and coordination with other government owned media organizations. However, IBC13 is not subsidized by the government. It is still on the touch of being private in terms of fund sourcing, mostly from block timers. The question is, is IBC13’s private transactions, being not totally Government owned, still covered in this Act? What if the information sought for might be of public concern since it is connected to the government but the content and essence of the information itself does not purely considered as a government transaction?
On the other hand, I side on the House version as it includes in its Definition of terms such as “Dataset”, “Marchine-readable” and “Open format” which are not defined in the Senate’s version. It shows about the implementation purpose when passed and when passed as a law, will be sensitive with the present advancement in technology.
This even contradicts on the following Section 6. Presumption. that “there shall be a legal presumption in favor of access to information”, this will then be never favorable if information if the accessibility of the information is first decided upon by the Sandiganbayan. It also taints the trust of people that there may be something going on in not knowing first hand. I would prefer the Senate’s version on this matter.
Sections on the Exceptions on the two FOI versions have differences as well:
In their Paragraph (a), of the House version exempts the access of information that “may cause grave damage to the national security or internal or external defense of the State” whereas the Senate’s version only states “may cause damage to national security or international and external defense of the State”. Having the word “grave” is a significant difference on its implementation. I would prefer the house version here since some information might cause damage but not a necessarily a grave threat. Since it is always easy to say that there is a possibility of damage but it is another for the government agency to prove that it is indeed grave. It adds protection to the right of information at par with the Presumption section of both versions that “government agencies shall have the burden of proof of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the information requested is exempted for the disclosure by this Act.”
Still under number 2 of Paragraph (a) Exceptions sections of two versions, there is the difference in the extension of the exception if the information revelation will “unduly weaken the negotiating position of the government in an ongoing bilateral or multilateral negotiation”. In the Senate’s version, it provided further that “the head of the department or agency… shall keep continuing review all classified information…” then “declassification of the information shall be subject to the approval of the President” whereas the House version takes away the burden and save time for the agencies by setting a time frame for the information to be available as it provided further “the executive order shall specify a reasonable period after which the information will be automatically declassified”.
Number 4 in the Paragraph (c) of the House version also exempts information that “lead to the disclosure of the identity of a confidential source” which is very tricky since some information can always have the possibility to lead to disclosure. However, information should be verified. I’m not sure if the Shield law of the press can apply to Government Agencies since that law is protection from the Government and the constitution has never mentioned Government’s protection from people. Even assuming that there is something like Shield law, this is even more disadvantageous in favor of access to information since the source confidentiality can be an easy excuse even if we merely want the information. Because of this that Whistleblowers are always at risk, they sacrifice just to show information that people is ought to know in the first place.
Now after examining some provisions specifically on their exceptions, I learned that this constitutional right is too powerful and too broad that making it very specific is so difficult to pass. The fallback is that people just got contended that they have the right to know but it is hassle to know it. That is the first exception. I think both bills should be amended to be more generous to the people and trust them with the information and participation in decision-making. As a return, people should be given the responsibility of taking care of the information by adding liability of mishandling such.
But still I know that the period in passing of this is too much. The story journey of FOI bill is as simple as the mentality that when the heat never turned into flame, it will not be prioritized or even if it flamed then suddenly the flame disappears, it will be forgotten. I think the answer is a strong reiteration from the President that this is going to be now or never in the administration. I believe there is still time.
Whatever bill that may be passed will be very helpful one way or another. However, as I state my opinions here, there are provisions that I think is disadvantageous if applied to me or how I see the need of the society. There comes the conflict that in this freedom of information, in every provision, in every word, two opposing sides will see it differently against each other. Benefit for one, disadvantage for another. The authors and home of the both bills are even prone to bias as being subjects themselves.
Up until then, the Government information remains only a privilege.
REFERENCES:
Freedom of Information Bill (consolidated draft as approved by the House Committee on Public Information). (2014, November 24). Retrieved March 18, 2015, from Official Gazette: http://www.gov.ph/2014/11/24/freedom-of-information-bill-draft-house-committee-public-information/
Freedom of Information Bill. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2015, from Official Gazette: http://www.gov.ph/foi/
Freedom of Information: FOI. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2015, from CMFR: Center for Media: http://www.cmfr-phil.org/freedom-of-information/
Freedom & Responsibility: Retrieved March 18, 2015, from Official Gazette: http://www.cmfr-phil.org/freedom-of-information/
Consolidated FOI Bill, “People’s Freedom of Information Act of 2014.”
Senate Bill No. 1733
LikeLike
TALUSAN, IRISH JANE L.
2013 – 79599
M230 – MA Media Studies
University of the Philippines Diliman
As a 17th century French philosopher René Descartes puts “To think, therefore I am”, in my belief, emanates from knowing that something needs to be known then to be thought about and perhaps to be acted upon. If Aristotle says that human beings are apart from animals and plants for having a rational soul, well that excludes instant knowledge for it is to be sought and to be given.
That to me is the essence of our constitutional right to know as stated in the Section 7, Article III of our 1987 Philippine Constitution. People should be given information for them to think about. As for what action they might do about it should not be assumed to the point of prohibition and when people are constantly provided information, people gets interested to seek more. A law on the right of information must first focus on capturing the curiousness of its men.
This also, to me, is the reason why the Freedom of Information law in the country is still floating in the country for more than two decades now. We have created a culture of fear from seeking and giving information. Reviewing the FOI timeline posted in the online site of Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the advancement of Freedom of Information since the first FOI bill of the late 2nd district Camarines Sur Representative Raul Roco in 1987 has been very slow. I have always believed that the postponement of the first try is a bad sign for the fulfillment of the next. That particular bill should have been acted upon since it was still “fresh” then, after that, the necessity of a bill lessens.
As early as 1993, FOI advocacy groups arose, which means there is needed reiteration. It was only in 1998 – 2001 that there happens advancement in its passing but still not a very successful one. From that on, numerous bills have been proposed. For a simple citizen like me, I don’t see the necessity of these. Do numerous proposals push hard the implementation? Or it merely seeks attention but only prolong the process? Prolonging the process seems to make more sense to me. I have also questioned what if the authorship of these is on the purpose of merely proposing because of the urge but no plans toward the perfect implementation?
Then suddenly we saw the glimpse of hope in the present administration of Benigno Aquino III, son of Ninoy Aquino who has been an image of fighting for the truth and who is also a journalist. Ninoy definitely would be interested in Freedom of Information. However, the FOI has always been left out in the President’s State of the Nation Addresses considering that the attention given to the content of the every SONA is competed by the outfit of attendants. This means, as I estimate it, 90 percent of the Philippine population not knowing on this pending law, or more so in this inherited right from the constitution. Ironic to think that people does not know that there is actually a right to know.
If FOI is a person, it could have exclaimed that is has been patient for so long. Has been giving to other bills to be prioritized and considerate with the Christmas breaks, lack of quorum or whatever excuse it can receive for 28 years now. And because the people have lived without it for the past decades, it now questions, “Am I still needed?”
But a right is a right. Regardless if we can live without it or not, it should be recognized and enjoyed free of the perception of being too late.
First, I would like to question the Section 3. Coverage. of the House version. It generally stated that “This Act shall cover government agencies.” followed by the enumeration of what the government agencies are followed by the inclusion of the “government-owned or controlled corporations”. I am interested in this particular part since I was for IBC13, a government sequestered corporation. We are active in the programs of the Government and we have constant participation and coordination with other government owned media organizations. However, IBC13 is not subsidized by the government. It is still on the touch of being private in terms of fund sourcing, mostly from block timers. The question is, is IBC13’s private transactions, being not totally Government owned, still covered in this Act? What if the information sought for might be of public concern since it is connected to the government but the content and essence of the information itself does not purely considered as a government transaction?
On the other hand, I side on the House version as it includes in its Definition of terms such as “Dataset”, “Marchine-readable” and “Open format” which are not defined in the Senate’s version. It shows about the implementation purpose when passed and when passed as a law, will be sensitive with the present advancement in technology.
This even contradicts on the following Section 6. Presumption. that “there shall be a legal presumption in favor of access to information”, this will then be never favorable if information if the accessibility of the information is first decided upon by the Sandiganbayan. It also taints the trust of people that there may be something going on in not knowing first hand. I would prefer the Senate’s version on this matter.
Sections on the Exceptions on the two FOI versions have differences as well:
In their Paragraph (a), of the House version exempts the access of information that “may cause grave damage to the national security or internal or external defense of the State” whereas the Senate’s version only states “may cause damage to national security or international and external defense of the State”. Having the word “grave” is a significant difference on its implementation. I would prefer the house version here since some information might cause damage but not a necessarily a grave threat. Since it is always easy to say that there is a possibility of damage but it is another for the government agency to prove that it is indeed grave. It adds protection to the right of information at par with the Presumption section of both versions that “government agencies shall have the burden of proof of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the information requested is exempted for the disclosure by this Act.”
Still under number 2 of Paragraph (a) Exceptions sections of two versions, there is the difference in the extension of the exception if the information revelation will “unduly weaken the negotiating position of the government in an ongoing bilateral or multilateral negotiation”. In the Senate’s version, it provided further that “the head of the department or agency… shall keep continuing review all classified information…” then “declassification of the information shall be subject to the approval of the President” whereas the House version takes away the burden and save time for the agencies by setting a time frame for the information to be available as it provided further “the executive order shall specify a reasonable period after which the information will be automatically declassified”.
Number 4 in the Paragraph (c) of the House version also exempts information that “lead to the disclosure of the identity of a confidential source” which is very tricky since some information can always have the possibility to lead to disclosure. However, information should be verified. I’m not sure if the Shield law of the press can apply to Government Agencies since that law is protection from the Government and the constitution has never mentioned Government’s protection from people. Even assuming that there is something like Shield law, this is even more disadvantageous in favor of access to information since the source confidentiality can be an easy excuse even if we merely want the information. Because of this that Whistleblowers are always at risk, they sacrifice just to show information that people is ought to know in the first place.
Now after examining some provisions specifically on their exceptions, I learned that this constitutional right is too powerful and too broad that making it very specific is so difficult to pass. The fallback is that people just got contended that they have the right to know but it is hassle to know it. That is the first exception. I think both bills should be amended to be more generous to the people and trust them with the information and participation in decision-making. As a return, people should be given the responsibility of taking care of the information by adding liability of mishandling such.
But still I know that the period in passing of this is too much. The story journey of FOI bill is as simple as the mentality that when the heat never turned into flame, it will not be prioritized or even if it flamed then suddenly the flame disappears, it will be forgotten. I think the answer is a strong reiteration from the President that this is going to be now or never in the administration. I believe there is still time.
Whatever bill that may be passed will be very helpful one way or another. However, as I state my opinions here, there are provisions that I think is disadvantageous if applied to me or how I see the need of the society. There comes the conflict that in this freedom of information, in every provision, in every word, two opposing sides will see it differently against each other. Benefit for one, disadvantage for another. The authors and home of the both bills are even prone to bias as being subjects themselves.
Up until then, the Government information remains only a privilege.
REFERENCES:
Freedom of Information Bill (consolidated draft as approved by the House Committee on Public Information). (2014, November 24). Retrieved March 18, 2015, from Official Gazette: http://www.gov.ph/2014/11/24/freedom-of-information-bill-draft-house-committee-public-information/
Freedom of Information Bill. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2015, from Official Gazette: http://www.gov.ph/foi/
Freedom of Information: FOI. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2015, from CMFR: Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility: http://www.cmfr-phil.org/freedom-of-information/
Consolidated FOI Bill, “People’s Freedom of Information Act of 2014.”
Senate Bill No. 1733
LikeLike
Hi Ma’am, here’s my assignment on the opinion in regards to FOI
https://irishtalusan.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/opinion-on-foi-assignment-of-media-230/
Thank you.
LikeLike
Media 230 : Opinion on FOI
Student#2014-90253
https://chajoanino.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Student # 2008-18193
http://www.evernote.com/l/AjB5x2M01GVOyLwCMHda472mLoRslMk7IO4/
LikeLike
OPINION PAPER ON PENDING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL
In a country like the Philippines where it is known for its democracy, it is really ironic that its people don’t have the power to participate. After all, the central idea of democracy is the ability of the people to participate. This is, I believe, the core of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill.
House Bill No. 3237 – An act to strengthen the right of citizens to information held by the government and Senate Bill 1733- An act implementing the people’s right to information and the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service and for other purposes. Both legislative arms of the government recognize these bills as Freedom to Information (FOI) Act of 2013.
It was the time when I conducted my historiography research that I experienced this- I was denied with my right to access public documents. It gave headache on how to complete that paper. From that moment, I took FOI seriously.
According to the Official Gazette of the Philippines that “the proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) Act aims to mandate the disclosure of public documents. The proposed bill also outlines the exceptions for public disclosure and the procedures for accessing public documents”
Furthermore it stated that “this FOI bill is an integral element of the Aquino Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Plan of 2012-2016. This plan lays out reforms and initiatives that pursue greater transparency, accountability, and citizen participation in governance.”
This opinion paper, in my own capability of understanding, points out good points, discusses some weak ones and raises simple questions about the bill.
Why it is that FOI bill still hasn’t been passed?
The passage of FOI is apparently long overdue. It was on August 31, 1992 when Rep. Oscar Orbos filed House Bill 1805. With the recent events that happened in the country’s political scene—Mamasapano incident, PDAF, DAP, Binay controversy and the ever celebrated Napoles scam— many of the people urges the government especially Aquino to sign this bill. But as I am suspecting, this won’t be passed, yet.
Using the news article titles published in Philippine Daily Inquirer, let me show you a part of the whole picture of how this bill was being “treated”:
Jan 14, 2014- Belmonte: House will pass FOI during my term
Jan 20, 2014- FOI bill passage eyed by end-March
Jan 21, 2014- Speaker Belmonte vows passage of ‘freedom of info’ bill
Jan 27, 2014- Grace Poe tireless in promoting FOI bill passage
Jan 28, 2014- Santiago warns of conflicts in freedom of information bills
Jan 29, 2014- Senators take home P1.4M a month–Santiago
Jan 30, 2014- Lawmakers told: If you have nothing to hide, fear not FOI bill
Feb 04, 2014- FOI bill proponents in House still hopeful of approval
Feb 06, 2014- House technical group adopts common provisions of 22 FOI bills
Feb 06, 2014- House meeting on FOI bill suspended thrice over technicality
Mar 03, 2014- Senate OKs FOI bill on second reading
Mar 10, 2014- FOI bill passed by Senate
Mar 14, 2014- Poe: Weak FOI law worse than Aquino’s inaction
Mar 17, 2014- Even village heads must bare their SALNs in Senate FOI bill
May 11, 2014- Palace commits support for FOI bill–next year
May 26, 2014- ‘Separate right of reply law better’
Jun 09, 2014- Lawmakers decry FOI exemption on police operations
Jun 16, 2014- Aquino urged: Declare FOI measure, budget control bill as urgent
Jul 26, 2014- Coalition demands to hear Aquino on freedom of info bill
Jul 31, 2014- FOI measure No. 18 in Palace’s 26 priority bills
Aug 02, 2014- Lawmaker sees passage of FOI bill
Aug 30, 2014- Poe allays Palace fears on FOI
Sep 04, 2014- House committee set to approve FOI bill
Nov 20, 2014-FOI: ‘More restrictions than access’
Dec 03, 2014-Belmonte vows FOI bill passage next year (ho-hum)
Mar 05, 2015- FOI bill gets budget, passes critical hurdle
Mar 07, 2015- Belmonte confident FOI will advance ‘within 16th Congress’
After these dramas, brouhahas and roller-coaster ride, where is the FOI Bill now? Do we need to wait for another 22 years for this bill to be passed as a law? This leads me to my second question.
Why did the Aquino Administration not certify FOI when the President demands for transparency and accountability in his effort to eliminate corruption in his government?
Three years ago, these statements came out from two of Aquino’s allies:
In a statement of the Right to Know, Right Now Coalition (2012) they quoted Belmonte when he emphasized that “the drive against corruption requires a comprehensive approach that includes enhancing law enforcement, increasing prosecutorial success, and establishing a culture of transparency in government.” He identified the FOI bill as among the legislative proposals being studied towards such ends.
Budget and Management Secretary Florencio Abad (as cited by the Right to Know, Right Now Coalition,2012), in a statement released when he submitted Malacañang’s endorsed version of the FOI bill to the House last February, said that it is essential in the Aquino administration’s governance and anti-corruption plan: “President Aquino believes that we can curb corruption more successfully and strengthen public institutions if citizens are given greater access to official information. Moreover, freedom of information—limited only by a few legitimate areas of confidentiality—will empower the people to hold their leaders accountable and get actively involved in governance.”
On2014, FOI advocates urged the President to classified the bill as urgent.
On a report Calonzo (2014) said that the President Benigno Aquino III cannot certify the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill as urgent just yet. He said that Aquino cannot push for the immediate passage of the transparency measure because the Constitution requires an “emergency” before a bill can be certified as urgent. “We have suggested to Congress certain amendments to the proposed measures that will make it really a doable activity for government. I regret I cannot certify it as urgent,” Aquino said (as quoted by Calonzo, 2014).
To give the government benefit of the doubt, maybe the reason why they need to study it further to limit the access of public documents to prevent these documents to be acquired by enemies of the state, people who will use the public record in ilegal purposes or even “irresponsible media.
I also thought that congressmen under Aquino’s umbrella are requesting him not to sign the bill yet because they fear that their own irregularities might be exposed and they might be the first public officials to be charged with the criminal liability under FOI.
Though my two questions raised above won’t be given by the government, especially Malacanang, with satisfactory answers, I believe that the Bill should be passed as this is beneficial to every citizens of the Philippines. In fact, I would like to point out provisions which I earn my nod as a media scholar & researcher, practitioner and as an educator. These are some of the provisions:
Congress’ Section 7 Mandatory Disclosure of Information and Senate’s Section 8 wherein all agencies of all branches of government shall upload on their websites documents especially SALN and other public documents and records.
Congress’ Section 13. Criminal Liability which states that “Any public official or employee who falsely denies or conceals the existence of information mandated 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.” Along with this is the Senate’s Section 22. Criminal Offenses and Penalties specifically (f) that states that “any public officer or employee who divulged or released information that is altered, tampered or modified to the extent that the released information materially difters from the original contents of the document”.
Senate’s Section 25. Integration of Freedom of Information (FOI) and Good Governance in Elementary and Secondary Curriculum which states that “To ensure a well-informed generations of citizens, the right to information, the principles of accountability and transparency, democracy and leadership, and good governance shall be integrated in such subjects as Heyograpiya, Kasaysayan at Sibika (HEKASI) and Araling Panlipunan in the elementary level and in such subjects as Social Studies and Makabayan or its equivalent subjects in high school level.”
I am the type of person that even bills and/or laws were being printed on black and white, I am still not fully persuaded that it will be initiated properly. But these provisions stated above give me the sense of assurance that FOI Bill will be a very important law.
I would like to point out the Senate’s Section 25 wherein it made me understand that FOI is not only for media practitioners (who is, more than ever, clamoring for the passage of the bill), but also for the future leaders and taxpayers of the country—the youth of today. If even on their level, they will be already taught about their right to access to information, I believe that we will have future citizens who are critical to the government’s activities, especially on matters of finance and expenditure.
But along with these provisions that I find really important, I am also skeptical on some of the provisions that I thought could be a problem once the bill will be passed. These are the following provisions:
Congress’ Section 6 and Senate’s Section 7. Exceptions which states “The information is specifically authorized to be kept secret under guidelines established by n executive order…1) The information directly relates to the national security or defense and its revelation may cause damage to the national security or internal and external defense of the State”
Congress’ Section 19 Remedies in Cases of Denial which states that “instead of filing a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, whenever a request for information is denied originally or on administrative appeal, the requesting party may file a verified petition for mandamus in the proper court…”. Senate does have their version of this through Section 16. Remedies in Cases of Denial of Request for Information, (a)(2) which states that “upon denial of the appeal with the government agency, the requesting party may file a verified petition for mandamus in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered ordering the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to disclose the requested information. Any action for administrative and/or criminal liability arising from the same act or omission, if any, shall be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.”
On the exceptions, national security sometimes become as excuse not to divulge information which every citizen ought to know. After all, they are the ones who are directly affected by it. I am sorry for my example but let me bring back the case of Mamasapano incident. I am truly aware that request for full disclosure of the operation will hinder the success of it but along these lines something could have been done for the welfare of the civilians.
Buckley et. al., (2008) said that “the abuse of national security and public order laws by the powerful to silence minorities, those espousing unpopular political causes, or just critical voices is very serious problem around the world”. Yes, they are right that the clause on national security tends to be susceptible to abuse especially by the people who hides something for their own advantage. Sometimes, I am not sure whether or not government hides this “national security classified information” or they are just hiding the incompetence.
On this provision Remedies in Cases of Denial, party being denied for access can go to proper court to seek petition for mandamus from a court. This is inconvenient to the part of the requestors. Let me speak in behalf of my neighbors in the province of Davao del Sur where procedure like this is not familiar to them. Once their request has been denied by a certain government agency, the FOI Bill stated that they need to seek mandamus from a court. This can be expensive, inconvenient and very time consuming on their part plus the fact that there is no clear process on how to request again or appeal for refusal of request.
Amartya Sen (as cited by Calland and Tilley, 2002) said that “the relationship between information and power is profound. Without information, the people have no power to make choices about their government – no ability to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process, to hold their governments accountable, to thwart corruption, to reduce poverty, or, ultimately, to live in a genuine democracy”
Furthermore, Calland and Tilley (2002) asserted that “the right to access information is a powerful tool that allows the most disadvantages groups of society to become involved in the development of initiatives that affect them. Lack of information prevents the participation of these groups in their own development by limiting their rights and freedoms and placing them in a position of vulnerability, thereby preventing them from exercising any control over those public policies. Without access to information, a country cannot sufficiently develop.”
Is the FOI bill the answer to the perennial problem of corruption in the country?
My answer is NO. I believe that once you are a thief, you will always be a thief. And the funny yet alarming truth about this is that it runs in the bloodline especially for political dynasty. So just imagine the millions or even billions of pesos that these thieves get from the government fund because of tampering and/or tampering public documents showing their expenditures. Though FOI can’t directly stop corruption, it will certainly change the system and will lead to reduce corruption and abuse of office by making all government activities transparent.
The government should pass the bill. I believe that FOI Bill is long overdue. The right to information provides greater opportunity for the Filipino citizens’ participation in good governance. I believe that once you deny a person it right to access to information, you lead him/her to be open to exploitation and manipulation by powerful people and institutions especially in the government. What causes our citizens to be vulnerable to speculations and “hear-says” is the unfamiliarity and lack of knowledge about government contracts, public documents and the government’s activities and services. If we will still continue to deny our people with its right to access to information, our people will eventually build up distrust in the government.
Furthermore, in a country where speculations are more interesting than truth, access to information leads to empowering truth. And by this truth, the Filipino people will then become an active participant of good governance—may be as an active opposition or a critical supporter of the administration.
As with my historiography, it wasn’t included in the articles to be published because it lacks the information that I could have gathered from the public document I requested. And from that moment, I told myself that I have to practice and assert my right to access to information.
Written By
RALPH JAKE T. WABINGGA
MAMS-Broadcast
Media 230. Media Ethics
Prof. Marichu Lambino
References:
Buckley, et. al (2008). Broadcasting, Voice, and accountability: a public interest approach to policy, law, and regulation. The World Bank Group: Washington,DC
Calland, Richard and Allison Tilley, ed., The right to Know, The Right to Live: Access to Information and Socio-Economic Justice. Open Democracy Advice Centre, 2002
Calonzo, Andreo (15 July 2014) PNoy still won’t certify FOI bill as urgent . Retrieved from:http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/370285/news/nation/pnoy-still-won-t-certify-foi-bill-as-urgent on March 12, 2015
Freedom of Information. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/tag/foi-bill on March 14, 2015
Freedom of Information. Retrieved from http://www.gov.ph/foi/ March 14,2015
Non-Passage of the FOI Bill in the 15th Congress is Not Acceptable. Retrieved from http://ifoi.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Last-opportunity-on-the-FOI-bill-final-5-nov-2012.pdf March 14, 2015
LikeLike
Media 230
Opinion on Pending Freedom of Information Bill
Student # 2012-78308
LikeLike
http://rejinelvalencia.blogspot.com/2015/03/foi-boon-or-bane.html
LikeLike
Leovina Ramirez
2007-19667
Here’s the link to my opinion on FOI:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/leovy-c-ramirez/do-not-kill-the-bill/10202768943824611
LikeLike
FOI in PHL: Notes on the Pending Freedom of Information Act of 2013
Rudyard Contreras Pesimo
MA Media Studies (Film). 1992-36658
University of the Philippines Diliman
“Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and…
the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.”
(UN General Assembly Resolution 59(I), 1946)
In governments around the world, there has always been a conflict between the need for access to state information and the desire for secrecy in state affairs. On one hand, citizens have legitimate interest in being informed about the activities of the government; on the other, the government has a legitimate concern in withholding information and in maintaining some level of secrecy.
However, I humbly submit that in a democracy, where power emanates from the people, the fulcrum shall remain tilted favorably towards civil liberty rather than in state secrecy.
In this digital age, with the strong presence of social media, there is a growing intolerance to government secrecy. A greater awareness to public officials’ actions and government activities emboldens the governed to demand from those who govern them to fulfill the mandates of their offices. More importantly, the electors are no longer silent in dealing with the inadequacies of those elected into office; they demand public disclosure of government policy decisions and actions, from the executive and legislative to the judiciary branches of our government.
Information is power. Thus, in a democracy where power emanates from the people, all information should be freely available to the public unless there are specific, well-formulated reasons for withholding it in the interest of security. Information held by public bodies is not for the benefit of officials or politicians but for the public as a whole.
The Freedom of Information Act of 2013 is founded on the ideals of democracy and the security of individual rights and freedom. As citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, we have the right to fulfill our goals and aspirations individually as Filipinos and collectively as a country. As citizens, we have the right to know and be informed of the government’s actions.
Freedom of information is a key component of transparent and accountable government. It plays a key role in enabling citizens to see what is going on within government, and in exposing corruption and mismanagement. Transparent and open government is also essential if voters are to be able to assess the performance of elected officials and if individuals are to exercise their democratic rights effectively. The right of access to information is a fundamental right and must be held as a cornerstone of democracy. In its absence, government can, and often does, behave with impunity.
The public’s right to know is primordial in an informed public debate. Such right is dependent on the freedom to receive information without government interference. However, I agree that this does not mean an all-encompassing right to receive any type of information from the government. Any restriction on information regarding security matters is valid. Still, I submit that the public interest in having information at all times must remain a priority consideration in any FOI Bill, and that any denial of this right be subject to a review. After all, the concept of an open government is largely based on the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression. Thus, the disclosure of information must be the rule, and secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands.
The Freedom of Information Act should have been passed decades ago. The people’s right to information on matters of public concern has been constitutionally recognized in the country since the 1973 Constitution. This right was expanded in the 1987 Constitution to include access to research data used as basis for policy development. While there is no enabling law yet on access to information, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has already ruled that the constitutional mandate is enforceable. In fact, the Code of Ethics of Government Officials also makes it the obligation of public officials and employees to make documents accessible to the public. The implementing rules of this law helped institute a system to promote transparency of transactions and access to government information, while setting limits of access.
Now, I firmly believe, that it is imperative to pass this Freedom of Information Act, especially in view of the escalating graft and corruption in the government. Its timely passage will put to life the right to access to information, which has been embodied, emblazoned and enshrined in our constitution, “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, shall be afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”
The primary advantage of this FOI Bill is that it provides transparency and accountability of the people running the government. Specifically, the people gain information of the activities of the government; the government officials must be transparent in their activities; and it provides accountability of the elected officials so that they have to perform their duties for the good of the people.
With this FOI Bill, every Filipino citizen can ask information from all government agencies, as specifically defined under Section 4 of the proposed bill. All information pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as government research data used as a basis for policy development, regardless of its physical form or format will be made available.
However, Section 6 on Exceptions states that the following information will remain classified: information specifically authorized to be kept secret under guidelines established by an executive order, and properly classified; the records of minutes and advice given and opinions expressed during decision-making or policy formulation, invoked by the Chief Executive to be privileged by reason of the sensitivity; information pertaining to internal and/or external defense, law enforcement, and border control; drafts of orders, resolutions, decisions, memoranda, or audit reports by any executive, administrative, regulatory, constitutional, judicial, or quasi-judicial body; information obtained by any committee of either house of Congress in executive session; personal information of a natural person other than the requesting party (Section 6f ); information pertaining to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that would seriously prejudice industrial, financial, or commercial competition (Section 6g ); information classified as privileged communications in legal proceedings by law or by the Rules of Court; and information exempted by law or the Constitution.
I find the abovementioned excluded information to be acceptable and favorable not only because they provide a safeguard to the national security and the government as a whole, but also guarantee protection to the individuals from whom confidential information were secured. This is useful in law enforcement whose operations against illegal activities utilize the help of confidential informants, who, more often than not, are within the circles of those involved in the illegal activities. Moreover, the Courts will not also be required to divulge the name of confidential informants who acted as deponents in the applications for search warrants against those who are involved in illegal activities.
This proposed bill expanded access to financial information, such as SALNs of government officials, and access to other kinds of information, such as transactions by incorporating a provision making the posting/publication mandatory. (Sections 7 and 8) The public is spared the tedious work of trying to access certain information from different agencies when the information is made available in one portal, the Official Gazette website (www.gov.ph) being the official publication.
I am amenable to the mandatory nature of this provision and the publication in the website of the SALN of the concerned government officials. This is the most transparent way of knowing the financial status of a government official, which anyone can access, and if the lifestyle of a government official is way above his financial status, as shown in his SALN, then, the erring official could be a subject of investigation.
The following information will be made available in this website: important legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the Philippines; executive and administrative orders and proclamations of general application; decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals or other courts of similar rank, as may be deemed of sufficient importance to be so published; and documents or classes of documents as the President shall determine to have general application.
Further, under this FOI Bill, government agencies are asked to translate key information into major Filipino languages and present them in popular form and means. All government agencies are required to prepare a Freedom of Information Manual that will contain details and procedures and serve as a guide on the matter. Finally, the bill integrates open data provisions, which mandates a regular and pro-active release of government data in open and machine-readable formats.
Section 16 of the FOI Bill enumerates the procedure of access: submit a request to the government agency concerned either personally, by mail, or through electronic means. The request will be stamped by the government agency, indicating the date, time, and other details of receipt (refer to Section 16b). In case the request is submitted by electronic means, the government agency shall provide for an equivalent means by which the requirements shall be met. The government agency shall comply with such request as soon as practicable, and in any case within 15 working days from receipt. The period may be extended for specific cases. (Section 16e) The government agency shall, in writing or through electronic means, notify the person making the request of the extension, the reasons for extension, and the date the information will be made available (no more than 20 working days). Once a decision is made to grant the request, the person making the request shall be notified of such and pay the required access and processing fees.
I hope that this procedure would be strictly followed both by the person requesting for the information and the office to whom the request is addressed in order to ensure the orderly and quick response to the request.
Under this FOI Bill, if the request is not granted (Section 18), the government agency shall notify the person making the request of such denial in writing or through electronic means within 15 working days from the receipt of the request. The notice shall clearly set forth the ground for denial and the circumstances on which the denial is based. Failure to notify shall be deemed a denial of the request for access to information. Following the proper procedure, denial of a request for access to information may be appealed to the head of agency (Section 19), or file a complaint with the Ombudsman, or a verified petition for mandamus may be filed in the proper court. The Judiciary shall however be governed by such remedies as promulgated by the Supreme Court.
I observed that this FOI bill expanded the list of mandatory information for disclosure, provided a specific procedure for access, stated the exemptions in a very clear and transparent manner, and directed that the exemptions are to be strictly construed. The disadvantage of the FOI is when the right granted to the people is abused and used by other people for their personal gain. This could be avoided if the procedure in the implementation of the FOI law is religiously followed and information which are exempted from its coverage are observed.
Now that the FOI has been approved on the committee level in both the Senate and House, the bill will be taken up in plenary. I do hope that the FOI bill will be passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Should this not happen, there are other laws which provide access to information, like the R.A. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, although its coverage is not as extensive as the FOI bill.
In the end, I believe that greater access to information empowers citizens to hold their public officials accountable, and to enable the citizens to participate in government processes. After all, isn’t this the true “daang matuwid?”
References
The Freedom of Information Act of 2013. An Act to Strengthen the Right of Citizens to Information Held By The Government
Senate Bill No. 1733. People’s Freedom of Information Act of 2013. An Act implementing the People’s Right to Information and the constitutional Policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the Public Service and for other purposes. Introduced by Senators Escudero, Trillanes IV, Osmena III, Honasan II, Guingona III, AP Cayetano, Ejercito, Legarda, Angara, Revilla Jr. and Poe
House Bill No. 3237. Freedom of Information Act of 2013. An Act to Strengthen the Right of Citizens to Information Held By The Government. Introduced by Representatives Robredo and Abad
1973 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
http://www.gov.ph/foi/
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/63794-why-philippines-needs-freedom-of-information-law
LikeLike
Please disregard my previous post containing a link to Facebook. Thank you!
Leovina Ramirez
2007-19667
Here’s the link to my opinion on FOI:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s550/sh/87ebf204-c33f-4d19-b5cf-8d33c4d4fd34/e7254c5df96d0cf36b5eba2a15381527
LikeLike
Leidiana D. Ibañez M230 Paper 1
2009-***** Media Ethics and Law
ON TRUTHS AND RIGHTS: Freedom of information
A Critique on the FOI versions, the People’s Search for Truth,
and the Culture of Transparency in the Philippines
[It] serves as key to expose corruption and is a deterrent of it in the government (Monsod, 2010). Aptly put, knowledge is power. One has no power if he/she knows nothing. The saying ignorance is bliss has no value over this issue as it answers to completely different life situations.
The proposed bills flag the public’s legal right to official information and to knowing the truth. Under the FOI, we can examine documents, agreements, budgets, subsidies, among others. In other words, it is like letting the sunshine in on all the dark spots (Monsod, 2010) that the government wants to keep from its “bosses”. It is in my highest view that transparency is a linchpin for good governance, and only with this does true development springs.
That’s the ideal part.
We now know how strenuous and difficult it is for us to attain our dreams. Though our freedom of information may indeed be classified as one of our basic human rights, it is also our shared feeling that those who are in power places this right way beyond our reach.
Ironically, our right to information was first included in the 1973 Constitution, under former President Ferdinand Marcos. Article IV Bill of Rights, Section 6 states, “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, shall be afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.” But under dictatorship, as mentioned earlier, the public, of course, has no access to free press, especially to government information (Monsod, 2010).
This right is also under the 1987 Constitution. Article III Bill of Rights, Section 7 states, “The State is to adapt 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.” Also, way back the 1940s, the Supreme Court has actually ruled that the constitutional provision is sufficient and that there is no need for additional legislation. G. R. Nos.183591, 183572, 183893 and 183951 The Province of North Cotabato v. Republic on October 14, 2008 reads, “The Court said that the people’s right to information on matters of public concern under sec. 7, Art III of the Constitution “is in splendid symmetry with the state policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest under sec. 28, Art. II of the Constitution.” The complete and effective exercise of the right to information necessitates that its complementary provision on public disclosure must be of the same self-executory nature, subject only to reasonable safeguards or limitations as may be provided by law.” Then, Republic Act No. 6713 requires disclosure of public transactions, guarantees access to official information, records and documents, and mandates officials to act on a request within 15 working days from its receipt, then, in the case of complaints, we can file it with the Civil Service Commission and the Ombudsman. Finally, an Act Establishing a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees Section 8: Statements and Disclosure states, “Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen years of age living in their households.”
Though the listing of existing laws (the Constitution, a Supreme Court ruling, and the Code of Conduct) which support our right to information is exhausting, the question still arises: why do we need additional legislation? Why do we need the FOI bill passed?
The answer, in my view, mainly lies in our “reality”. Day by day, we, most especially, media practitioners, experience the exhausting and sometimes temper-testing system that the Philippine government has now adapted.
[T]he devil is in the details (Monsod, 2010). Getting information from some government offices means spending great and magnanimous parts of our time and patience on doing just that. It is trying to be in the midst of endless and blurred systems of deception and power-plays. The different agencies have different rules, practices and habits without due consideration of the public’s rights, and these also changes with the change of administration.
There is a great dip in the Philippine government’s culture of transparency.
Though the present government under president Noynoy Aquino promised to uphold his famous lines “Tuwid na Daan” in the service of the Filipino people, his “bosses”, we have yet to experience real freedom and empowerment.
Let us not be content in the present system. Always, our goal must be to forward each other’s interests alongside our country’s development. We can do something, and it starts in knowing.
Sources:
22 June 2010. WINNIE MONSOD ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT “IN TAGALOG” ANG SUSI SA PAG-EXPOSE NG KURAPSYON!, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv32_Ofs3tg
FOI. CMFR Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, retrieved from http://www.cmfr-phil.org/freedom-of-information/
Freedom of Information Bill. Official Gazette, retrieved from http://www.gov.ph/foi/
LikeLike
OPINION PAPER ON PENDING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL
In a country like the Philippines where it is known for its democracy, it is really ironic that its people don’t have the power to participate. After all, the central idea of democracy is the ability of the people to participate. This is, I believe, the core of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill.
House Bill No. 3237 – An act to strengthen the right of citizens to information held by the government and Senate Bill 1733- An act implementing the people’s right to information and the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service and for other purposes. Both legislative arms of the government recognize these bills as Freedom to Information (FOI) Act of 2013.
It was the time when I conducted my historiography research that I experienced this- I was denied with my right to access public documents. It gave headache on how to complete that paper. From that moment, I took FOI seriously.
According to the Official Gazette of the Philippines that “the proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) Act aims to mandate the disclosure of public documents. The proposed bill also outlines the exceptions for public disclosure and the procedures for accessing public documents”
Furthermore it stated that “this FOI bill is an integral element of the Aquino Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Plan of 2012-2016. This plan lays out reforms and initiatives that pursue greater transparency, accountability, and citizen participation in governance.”
This opinion paper, in my own capability of understanding, points out good points, discusses some weak ones and raises simple questions about the bill.
Why it is that FOI bill still hasn’t been passed?
The passage of FOI is apparently long overdue. It was on August 31, 1992 when Rep. Oscar Orbos filed House Bill 1805. With the recent events that happened in the country’s political scene—Mamasapano incident, PDAF, DAP, Binay controversy and the ever celebrated Napoles scam— many of the people urges the government especially Aquino to sign this bill. But as I am suspecting, this won’t be passed, yet.
Using the news article titles published in Philippine Daily Inquirer, let me show you a part of the whole picture of how this bill was being “treated”:
Jan 14, 2014- Belmonte: House will pass FOI during my term
Jan 20, 2014- FOI bill passage eyed by end-March
Jan 21, 2014- Speaker Belmonte vows passage of ‘freedom of info’ bill
Jan 27, 2014- Grace Poe tireless in promoting FOI bill passage
Jan 28, 2014- Santiago warns of conflicts in freedom of information bills
Jan 29, 2014- Senators take home P1.4M a month–Santiago
Jan 30, 2014- Lawmakers told: If you have nothing to hide, fear not FOI bill
Feb 04, 2014- FOI bill proponents in House still hopeful of approval
Feb 06, 2014- House technical group adopts common provisions of 22 FOI bills
Feb 06, 2014- House meeting on FOI bill suspended thrice over technicality
Mar 03, 2014- Senate OKs FOI bill on second reading
Mar 10, 2014- FOI bill passed by Senate
Mar 14, 2014- Poe: Weak FOI law worse than Aquino’s inaction
Mar 17, 2014- Even village heads must bare their SALNs in Senate FOI bill
May 11, 2014- Palace commits support for FOI bill–next year
May 26, 2014- ‘Separate right of reply law better’
Jun 09, 2014- Lawmakers decry FOI exemption on police operations
Jun 16, 2014- Aquino urged: Declare FOI measure, budget control bill as urgent
Jul 26, 2014- Coalition demands to hear Aquino on freedom of info bill
Jul 31, 2014- FOI measure No. 18 in Palace’s 26 priority bills
Aug 02, 2014- Lawmaker sees passage of FOI bill
Aug 30, 2014- Poe allays Palace fears on FOI
Sep 04, 2014- House committee set to approve FOI bill
Nov 20, 2014-FOI: ‘More restrictions than access’
Dec 03, 2014-Belmonte vows FOI bill passage next year (ho-hum)
Mar 05, 2015- FOI bill gets budget, passes critical hurdle
Mar 07, 2015- Belmonte confident FOI will advance ‘within 16th Congress’
After these dramas, brouhahas and roller-coaster ride, where is the FOI Bill now? Do we need to wait for another 22 years for this bill to be passed as a law? This leads me to my second question.
Why did the Aquino Administration not certify FOI when the President demands for transparency and accountability in his effort to eliminate corruption in his government?
Three years ago, these statements came out from two of Aquino’s allies:
In a statement of the Right to Know, Right Now Coalition (2012) they quoted Belmonte when he emphasized that “the drive against corruption requires a comprehensive approach that includes enhancing law enforcement, increasing prosecutorial success, and establishing a culture of transparency in government.” He identified the FOI bill as among the legislative proposals being studied towards such ends.
Budget and Management Secretary Florencio Abad (as cited by the Right to Know, Right Now Coalition,2012), in a statement released when he submitted Malacañang’s endorsed version of the FOI bill to the House last February, said that it is essential in the Aquino administration’s governance and anti-corruption plan: “President Aquino believes that we can curb corruption more successfully and strengthen public institutions if citizens are given greater access to official information. Moreover, freedom of information—limited only by a few legitimate areas of confidentiality—will empower the people to hold their leaders accountable and get actively involved in governance.”
On2014, FOI advocates urged the President to classified the bill as urgent.
On a report Calonzo (2014) said that the President Benigno Aquino III cannot certify the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill as urgent just yet. He said that Aquino cannot push for the immediate passage of the transparency measure because the Constitution requires an “emergency” before a bill can be certified as urgent. “We have suggested to Congress certain amendments to the proposed measures that will make it really a doable activity for government. I regret I cannot certify it as urgent,” Aquino said (as quoted by Calonzo, 2014).
To give the government benefit of the doubt, maybe the reason why they need to study it further to limit the access of public documents to prevent these documents to be acquired by enemies of the state, people who will use the public record in ilegal purposes or even “irresponsible media.
I also thought that congressmen under Aquino’s umbrella are requesting him not to sign the bill yet because they fear that their own irregularities might be exposed and they might be the first public officials to be charged with the criminal liability under FOI.
Though my two questions raised above won’t be given by the government, especially Malacanang, with satisfactory answers, I believe that the Bill should be passed as this is beneficial to every citizens of the Philippines. In fact, I would like to point out provisions which I earn my nod as a media scholar & researcher, practitioner and as an educator. These are some of the provisions:
Congress’ Section 7 Mandatory Disclosure of Information and Senate’s Section 8 wherein all agencies of all branches of government shall upload on their websites documents especially SALN and other public documents and records.
Congress’ Section 13. Criminal Liability which states that “Any public official or employee who falsely denies or conceals the existence of information mandated 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.” Along with this is the Senate’s Section 22. Criminal Offenses and Penalties specifically (f) that states that “any public officer or employee who divulged or released information that is altered, tampered or modified to the extent that the released information materially difters from the original contents of the document”.
Senate’s Section 25. Integration of Freedom of Information (FOI) and Good Governance in Elementary and Secondary Curriculum which states that “To ensure a well-informed generations of citizens, the right to information, the principles of accountability and transparency, democracy and leadership, and good governance shall be integrated in such subjects as Heyograpiya, Kasaysayan at Sibika (HEKASI) and Araling Panlipunan in the elementary level and in such subjects as Social Studies and Makabayan or its equivalent subjects in high school level.”
I am the type of person that even bills and/or laws were being printed on black and white, I am still not fully persuaded that it will be initiated properly. But these provisions stated above give me the sense of assurance that FOI Bill will be a very important law.
I would like to point out the Senate’s Section 25 wherein it made me understand that FOI is not only for media practitioners (who is, more than ever, clamoring for the passage of the bill), but also for the future leaders and taxpayers of the country—the youth of today. If even on their level, they will be already taught about their right to access to information, I believe that we will have future citizens who are critical to the government’s activities, especially on matters of finance and expenditure.
But along with these provisions that I find really important, I am also skeptical on some of the provisions that I thought could be a problem once the bill will be passed. These are the following provisions:
Congress’ Section 6 and Senate’s Section 7. Exceptions which states “The information is specifically authorized to be kept secret under guidelines established by n executive order…1) The information directly relates to the national security or defense and its revelation may cause damage to the national security or internal and external defense of the State”
Congress’ Section 19 Remedies in Cases of Denial which states that “instead of filing a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, whenever a request for information is denied originally or on administrative appeal, the requesting party may file a verified petition for mandamus in the proper court…”. Senate does have their version of this through Section 16. Remedies in Cases of Denial of Request for Information, (a)(2) which states that “upon denial of the appeal with the government agency, the requesting party may file a verified petition for mandamus in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered ordering the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to disclose the requested information. Any action for administrative and/or criminal liability arising from the same act or omission, if any, shall be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.”
On the exceptions, national security sometimes become as excuse not to divulge information which every citizen ought to know. After all, they are the ones who are directly affected by it. I am sorry for my example but let me bring back the case of Mamasapano incident. I am truly aware that request for full disclosure of the operation will hinder the success of it but along these lines something could have been done for the welfare of the civilians.
Buckley et. al., (2008) said that “the abuse of national security and public order laws by the powerful to silence minorities, those espousing unpopular political causes, or just critical voices is very serious problem around the world”. Yes, they are right that the clause on national security tends to be susceptible to abuse especially by the people who hides something for their own advantage. Sometimes, I am not sure whether or not government hides this “national security classified information” or they are just hiding the incompetence.
On this provision Remedies in Cases of Denial, party being denied for access can go to proper court to seek petition for mandamus from a court. This is inconvenient to the part of the requestors. Let me speak in behalf of my neighbors in the province of Davao del Sur where procedure like this is not familiar to them. Once their request has been denied by a certain government agency, the FOI Bill stated that they need to seek mandamus from a court. This can be expensive, inconvenient and very time consuming on their part plus the fact that there is no clear process on how to request again or appeal for refusal of request.
Amartya Sen (as cited by Calland and Tilley, 2002) said that “the relationship between information and power is profound. Without information, the people have no power to make choices about their government – no ability to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process, to hold their governments accountable, to thwart corruption, to reduce poverty, or, ultimately, to live in a genuine democracy”
Furthermore, Calland and Tilley (2002) asserted that “the right to access information is a powerful tool that allows the most disadvantages groups of society to become involved in the development of initiatives that affect them. Lack of information prevents the participation of these groups in their own development by limiting their rights and freedoms and placing them in a position of vulnerability, thereby preventing them from exercising any control over those public policies. Without access to information, a country cannot sufficiently develop.”
Is the FOI bill the answer to the perennial problem of corruption in the country?
My answer is NO. I believe that once you are a thief, you will always be a thief. And the funny yet alarming truth about this is that it runs in the bloodline especially for political dynasty. So just imagine the millions or even billions of pesos that these thieves get from the government fund because of tampering and/or tampering public documents showing their expenditures. Though FOI can’t directly stop corruption, it will certainly change the system and will lead to reduce corruption and abuse of office by making all government activities transparent.
The government should pass the bill. I believe that FOI Bill is long overdue. The right to information provides greater opportunity for the Filipino citizens’ participation in good governance. I believe that once you deny a person it right to access to information, you lead him/her to be open to exploitation and manipulation by powerful people and institutions especially in the government. What causes our citizens to be vulnerable to speculations and “hear-says” is the unfamiliarity and lack of knowledge about government contracts, public documents and the government’s activities and services. If we will still continue to deny our people with its right to access to information, our people will eventually build up distrust in the government.
Furthermore, in a country where speculations are more interesting than truth, access to information leads to empowering truth. And by this truth, the Filipino people will then become an active participant of good governance—may be as an active opposition or a critical supporter of the administration.
As with my historiography, it wasn’t included in the articles to be published because it lacks the information that I could have gathered from the public document I requested. And from that moment, I told myself that I have to practice and assert my right to access to information.
References:
Buckley, et. al (2008). Broadcasting, Voice, and accountability: a public interest approach to policy, law, and regulation. The World Bank Group: Washington,DC
Calland, Richard and Allison Tilley, ed., The right to Know, The Right to Live: Access to Information and Socio-Economic Justice. Open Democracy Advice Centre, 2002
Calonzo, Andreo (15 July 2014) PNoy still won’t certify FOI bill as urgent .
Retrieved from: gmanetwork.com/news/story nation/pnoy-still-won-t-certify-foi-bill-as-urgent on March 12, 2015
Freedom of Information. Retrieved from inquirer.net foi-bill on March 14, 2015
Freedom of Information. Retrieved from gov.ph foi March 14,2015
Non-Passage of the FOI Bill in the 15th Congress is Not Acceptable. Retrieved from ifoi.ph/wp-content 2012/11/Last-opportunity-on-the-FOI-bill-final-5-nov-2012 March 14, 2015
LikeLike
OPINION PAPER ON PENDING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL
In a country like the Philippines where it is known for its democracy, it is really ironic that its people don’t have the power to participate. After all, the central idea of democracy is the ability of the people to participate. This is, I believe, the core of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill.
House Bill No. 3237 – An act to strengthen the right of citizens to information held by the government and Senate Bill 1733- An act implementing the people’s right to information and the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service and for other purposes. Both legislative arms of the government recognize these bills as Freedom to Information (FOI) Act of 2013.
It was the time when I conducted my historiography research that I experienced this- I was denied with my right to access public documents. It gave headache on how to complete that paper. From that moment, I took FOI seriously.
According to the Official Gazette of the Philippines that “the proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) Act aims to mandate the disclosure of public documents. The proposed bill also outlines the exceptions for public disclosure and the procedures for accessing public documents”
Furthermore it stated that “this FOI bill is an integral element of the Aquino Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Plan of 2012-2016. This plan lays out reforms and initiatives that pursue greater transparency, accountability, and citizen participation in governance.”
This opinion paper, in my own capability of understanding, points out good points, discusses some weak ones and raises simple questions about the bill.
Why it is that FOI bill still hasn’t been passed?
The passage of FOI is apparently long overdue. It was on August 31, 1992 when Rep. Oscar Orbos filed House Bill 1805. With the recent events that happened in the country’s political scene—Mamasapano incident, PDAF, DAP, Binay controversy and the ever celebrated Napoles scam— many of the people urges the government especially Aquino to sign this bill. But as I am suspecting, this won’t be passed, yet.
Using the news article titles published in Philippine Daily Inquirer, let me show you a part of the whole picture of how this bill was being “treated”:
Jan 14, 2014- Belmonte: House will pass FOI during my term
Jan 20, 2014- FOI bill passage eyed by end-March
Jan 21, 2014- Speaker Belmonte vows passage of ‘freedom of info’ bill
Jan 27, 2014- Grace Poe tireless in promoting FOI bill passage
Jan 28, 2014- Santiago warns of conflicts in freedom of information bills
Jan 29, 2014- Senators take home P1.4M a month–Santiago
Jan 30, 2014- Lawmakers told: If you have nothing to hide, fear not FOI bill
Feb 04, 2014- FOI bill proponents in House still hopeful of approval
Feb 06, 2014- House technical group adopts common provisions of 22 FOI bills
Feb 06, 2014- House meeting on FOI bill suspended thrice over technicality
Mar 03, 2014- Senate OKs FOI bill on second reading
Mar 10, 2014- FOI bill passed by Senate
Mar 14, 2014- Poe: Weak FOI law worse than Aquino’s inaction
Mar 17, 2014- Even village heads must bare their SALNs in Senate FOI bill
May 11, 2014- Palace commits support for FOI bill–next year
May 26, 2014- ‘Separate right of reply law better’
Jun 09, 2014- Lawmakers decry FOI exemption on police operations
Jun 16, 2014- Aquino urged: Declare FOI measure, budget control bill as urgent
Jul 26, 2014- Coalition demands to hear Aquino on freedom of info bill
Jul 31, 2014- FOI measure No. 18 in Palace’s 26 priority bills
Aug 02, 2014- Lawmaker sees passage of FOI bill
Aug 30, 2014- Poe allays Palace fears on FOI
Sep 04, 2014- House committee set to approve FOI bill
Nov 20, 2014-FOI: ‘More restrictions than access’
Dec 03, 2014-Belmonte vows FOI bill passage next year (ho-hum)
Mar 05, 2015- FOI bill gets budget, passes critical hurdle
Mar 07, 2015- Belmonte confident FOI will advance ‘within 16th Congress’
After these dramas, brouhahas and roller-coaster ride, where is the FOI Bill now? Do we need to wait for another 22 years for this bill to be passed as a law? This leads me to my second question.
Why did the Aquino Administration not certify FOI when the President demands for transparency and accountability in his effort to eliminate corruption in his government?
Three years ago, these statements came out from two of Aquino’s allies:
In a statement of the Right to Know, Right Now Coalition (2012) they quoted Belmonte when he emphasized that “the drive against corruption requires a comprehensive approach that includes enhancing law enforcement, increasing prosecutorial success, and establishing a culture of transparency in government.” He identified the FOI bill as among the legislative proposals being studied towards such ends.
Budget and Management Secretary Florencio Abad (as cited by the Right to Know, Right Now Coalition,2012), in a statement released when he submitted Malacañang’s endorsed version of the FOI bill to the House last February, said that it is essential in the Aquino administration’s governance and anti-corruption plan: “President Aquino believes that we can curb corruption more successfully and strengthen public institutions if citizens are given greater access to official information. Moreover, freedom of information—limited only by a few legitimate areas of confidentiality—will empower the people to hold their leaders accountable and get actively involved in governance.”
On2014, FOI advocates urged the President to classified the bill as urgent.
On a report Calonzo (2014) said that the President Benigno Aquino III cannot certify the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill as urgent just yet. He said that Aquino cannot push for the immediate passage of the transparency measure because the Constitution requires an “emergency” before a bill can be certified as urgent. “We have suggested to Congress certain amendments to the proposed measures that will make it really a doable activity for government. I regret I cannot certify it as urgent,” Aquino said (as quoted by Calonzo, 2014).
To give the government benefit of the doubt, maybe the reason why they need to study it further to limit the access of public documents to prevent these documents to be acquired by enemies of the state, people who will use the public record in ilegal purposes or even “irresponsible media.
I also thought that congressmen under Aquino’s umbrella are requesting him not to sign the bill yet because they fear that their own irregularities might be exposed and they might be the first public officials to be charged with the criminal liability under FOI.
Though my two questions raised above won’t be given by the government, especially Malacanang, with satisfactory answers, I believe that the Bill should be passed as this is beneficial to every citizens of the Philippines. In fact, I would like to point out provisions which I earn my nod as a media scholar & researcher, practitioner and as an educator. These are some of the provisions:
Congress’ Section 7 Mandatory Disclosure of Information and Senate’s Section 8 wherein all agencies of all branches of government shall upload on their websites documents especially SALN and other public documents and records.
Congress’ Section 13. Criminal Liability which states that “Any public official or employee who falsely denies or conceals the existence of information mandated 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.” Along with this is the Senate’s Section 22. Criminal Offenses and Penalties specifically (f) that states that “any public officer or employee who divulged or released information that is altered, tampered or modified to the extent that the released information materially difters from the original contents of the document”.
Senate’s Section 25. Integration of Freedom of Information (FOI) and Good Governance in Elementary and Secondary Curriculum which states that “To ensure a well-informed generations of citizens, the right to information, the principles of accountability and transparency, democracy and leadership, and good governance shall be integrated in such subjects as Heyograpiya, Kasaysayan at Sibika (HEKASI) and Araling Panlipunan in the elementary level and in such subjects as Social Studies and Makabayan or its equivalent subjects in high school level.”
I am the type of person that even bills and/or laws were being printed on black and white, I am still not fully persuaded that it will be initiated properly. But these provisions stated above give me the sense of assurance that FOI Bill will be a very important law.
I would like to point out the Senate’s Section 25 wherein it made me understand that FOI is not only for media practitioners (who is, more than ever, clamoring for the passage of the bill), but also for the future leaders and taxpayers of the country—the youth of today. If even on their level, they will be already taught about their right to access to information, I believe that we will have future citizens who are critical to the government’s activities, especially on matters of finance and expenditure.
But along with these provisions that I find really important, I am also skeptical on some of the provisions that I thought could be a problem once the bill will be passed. These are the following provisions:
Congress’ Section 6 and Senate’s Section 7. Exceptions which states “The information is specifically authorized to be kept secret under guidelines established by n executive order…1) The information directly relates to the national security or defense and its revelation may cause damage to the national security or internal and external defense of the State”
Congress’ Section 19 Remedies in Cases of Denial which states that “instead of filing a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, whenever a request for information is denied originally or on administrative appeal, the requesting party may file a verified petition for mandamus in the proper court…”. Senate does have their version of this through Section 16. Remedies in Cases of Denial of Request for Information, (a)(2) which states that “upon denial of the appeal with the government agency, the requesting party may file a verified petition for mandamus in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered ordering the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to disclose the requested information. Any action for administrative and/or criminal liability arising from the same act or omission, if any, shall be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.”
On the exceptions, national security sometimes become as excuse not to divulge information which every citizen ought to know. After all, they are the ones who are directly affected by it. I am sorry for my example but let me bring back the case of Mamasapano incident. I am truly aware that request for full disclosure of the operation will hinder the success of it but along these lines something could have been done for the welfare of the civilians.
Buckley et. al., (2008) said that “the abuse of national security and public order laws by the powerful to silence minorities, those espousing unpopular political causes, or just critical voices is very serious problem around the world”. Yes, they are right that the clause on national security tends to be susceptible to abuse especially by the people who hides something for their own advantage. Sometimes, I am not sure whether or not government hides this “national security classified information” or they are just hiding the incompetence.
On this provision Remedies in Cases of Denial, party being denied for access can go to proper court to seek petition for mandamus from a court. This is inconvenient to the part of the requestors. Let me speak in behalf of my neighbors in the province of Davao del Sur where procedure like this is not familiar to them. Once their request has been denied by a certain government agency, the FOI Bill stated that they need to seek mandamus from a court. This can be expensive, inconvenient and very time consuming on their part plus the fact that there is no clear process on how to request again or appeal for refusal of request.
Amartya Sen (as cited by Calland and Tilley, 2002) said that “the relationship between information and power is profound. Without information, the people have no power to make choices about their government – no ability to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process, to hold their governments accountable, to thwart corruption, to reduce poverty, or, ultimately, to live in a genuine democracy”
Furthermore, Calland and Tilley (2002) asserted that “the right to access information is a powerful tool that allows the most disadvantages groups of society to become involved in the development of initiatives that affect them. Lack of information prevents the participation of these groups in their own development by limiting their rights and freedoms and placing them in a position of vulnerability, thereby preventing them from exercising any control over those public policies. Without access to information, a country cannot sufficiently develop.”
Is the FOI bill the answer to the perennial problem of corruption in the country?
My answer is NO. I believe that once you are a thief, you will always be a thief. And the funny yet alarming truth about this is that it runs in the bloodline especially for political dynasty. So just imagine the millions or even billions of pesos that these thieves get from the government fund because of tampering and/or tampering public documents showing their expenditures. Though FOI can’t directly stop corruption, it will certainly change the system and will lead to reduce corruption and abuse of office by making all government activities transparent.
The government should pass the bill. I believe that FOI Bill is long overdue. The right to information provides greater opportunity for the Filipino citizens’ participation in good governance. I believe that once you deny a person it right to access to information, you lead him/her to be open to exploitation and manipulation by powerful people and institutions especially in the government. What causes our citizens to be vulnerable to speculations and “hear-says” is the unfamiliarity and lack of knowledge about government contracts, public documents and the government’s activities and services. If we will still continue to deny our people with its right to access to information, our people will eventually build up distrust in the government.
Furthermore, in a country where speculations are more interesting than truth, access to information leads to empowering truth. And by this truth, the Filipino people will then become an active participant of good governance—may be as an active opposition or a critical supporter of the administration.
As with my historiography, it wasn’t included in the articles to be published because it lacks the information that I could have gathered from the public document I requested. And from that moment, I told myself that I have to practice and assert my right to access to information.
Opinion Paper by
RALPH JAKE T. WABINGGA
MAMS-Broadcast
Media 230.Media Ethics
Prof. Marichu Lambino
References:
Buckley, et. al (2008). Broadcasting, Voice, and accountability: a public interest approach to policy, law, and regulation. The World Bank Group: Washington,DC
Calland, Richard and Allison Tilley, ed., The right to Know, The Right to Live: Access to Information and Socio-Economic Justice. Open Democracy Advice Centre, 2002
Calonzo, Andreo (15 July 2014) PNoy still won’t certify FOI bill as urgent .
Retrieved from: gmanetwork.com news/nation/pnoy-still-won-t-certify-foi-bill-as-urgent on March 12, 2015
Freedom of Information. Retrieved from inquirer.net foi-bill on March 14, 2015
Freedom of Information. Retrieved from gov.ph foi March 14,2015
Non-Passage of the FOI Bill in the 15th Congress is Not Acceptable. Retrieved from ifoi.ph /wp-content 2012/11/Last-opportunity-on-the-FOI-bill-final-5-nov-2012 March 14, 2015
LikeLike
Opinion on FOI Bill
LikeLike
link to my opinion on FOI bill
Marie Kris D. Lora
https://kitkotlovesyou.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/foi-bill-opinion/
LikeLike
OPINION PAPER ON THE FOI BILL
It is every Filipino’s right to access information on matters of public concern as it has been constitutionally- recognized since 1973. Section 6 of the 1978 Philippine Constitution states that, “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, shall be afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as may be provided by law”. Whereas the desire of the public for transparency and accountability towards the government and its officials are recognized to mainly prevent acts of graft and corruption within the government.
The public’s recognition of the power of information and being involved in public affairs were justified during the pressing times of the Marcos dictatorship in 1972- 1986 (Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, 2014). The Freedom of Information (FOI) bill which ‘outlines the exceptions for public disclosure and procedures for accessing public documents’ was first filed in 1987 but yet, an FOI act that aims to ‘mandate the disclosure of public documents’ has yet to be passed by the Philippine Congress to fully enact the bill ’(Official Gazette of the Phils., 2015).
What is the current status of the FOI law?
The following selected information was lifted from the website of the Official Gazette of the Philippines to further illustrate the status of the pending FOI bill:
House of Representatives
LATEST: On March 4, 2015, the bill passed the Committee on Appropriations; as of this date, it is awaiting 2nd reading.
Now that the FOI has been approved on the committee level in both the Senate and House, the bill will be taken up in plenary.
What current laws does the government uphold in lieu of the FOI act?
The 1987 Constitution, Bill of Rights, “access to research data” as basis for policy development was included. This was shortly after the EDSA uprising in 1986. The Philippine Supreme Court has ruled that the “constitutional mandate is enforceable” even if there’s no enabling law yet on such right (Rappler Phils., 2014). In the Code of Ethics of Government Officials, government officials including employees are obliged to make documents that are of public concern such as financial disclosure statements accessible to the public. It promotes transparency among government offices yet ironically, it also sets limits of access (Rappler Phils., 2014). The Anti- Red Tape Act of 2007 (RA 9485) which is an “act to improve efficiency in the delivery of government services to the public by reducing bureaucratic red tape, preventing graft and corruption”. Request to public records made upon by a citizen of the Philippines to a government office is under “Frontline service” which refers to “ the process or transaction between clients and government offices or agencies involving applications for any privilege, right, permit, reward, license… And/ or requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the agency or office is concerned” (RA 9485). A reply to an inquiry or request such that of access to a public document should be made by the office within fifteen (15) working days.
Why do we still need an FOI bill?
I’ve gathered information through articles both in print and online that talks about the debate on the passage of the pending FOI bill. Why is a law that will govern the citizens’ right to information necessary? It is due to the following reasons:
1.Selective release of information
In an article by Rappler Phils., government offices in accordance to their code of ethics are obliged to make public documents available. Asset disclosure statements are even required to be made available to the public for duplication within 10 days after they have been received. But even so in the case of journalists, they are refused access to such documents without any clear grounds. If such requests are granted, full and detailed lists are denied. The House only releases a summary of the wealth of House members that only includes the total assets and liabilities and net worth of each member of the house and not the full list with particulars hence, full disclosure of activities in the government offices that are of public interest are not being catered to the public. The best feature an FOI law could offer is to institutionalize the public’s access to government information online for efficiency, convenience and transparency but then again, this matter is still debatable.
2.Limited and biased access
An FOI law basically grants access to information by default. Any citizen can request documents classified under public records without necessary justifications which does not hold true to the current practice of Philippine government offices. Usual claims that are against the proposed FOI law may include concerns of national security, public safety, “irresponsible media usage” and among others.
3.There is no clear process of appealing refusal of request to information.
The (only) available option for the public is to file a petition for a mandamus or court order forcing the office to release such documents which is very inefficient and time constraining.
4.Preservation and protection of information
According to a research conducted by Rappler Phils., an FOI law features provisions that require recording, archiving and protection of information. Verbal information in meetings, and proceedings should be properly archived and protected. The government practice does not usually make records on amendments of the national budget available to the public.
The FOI law will institutionalize the public access to government data and information hence, the transparency especially in government transactions involving the use of public funds which is a current main issue. Also the provision of such data will be part of the standard operating procedures of the government meaning the responsibility of publishing documents that concern public interest which contains dubious transactions. With this, the responsibility will reside on the part of the government. By default, corrupt officials are punishable by law but with the passage of the FOI bill, those responsible in omitting government data will be held responsible in this law.
Sources:
The Official Gazette of the Philippines website (2015)
Rappler Philippines website (2014)
1987 Constitution
Anti- Red Tape Act of 2007 (RA 9485)
Proposed bill – FOI Act of 2013
LikeLike
Hi Ma’am. Not sure if this is the right page where I should comment my 1st Media Monitor but here’s mine 🙂
I read an article of ABS-CBN News today, April 16, about a security guard who is charged of raping and abusing a 10-year old girl at the MMDA park in Manila. While victim is just labeled as the “girl” or “10-year old” on the first three lines, I noticed that the kid is named on the fourth where the article wrote “Coincidentally, Jenny’s parents were looking for her, and they were informed that she was last seen with the subject.”
According to the Article 3 of 2007 Broadcast Code of the Philippines about coverage involving children, “The right to privacy of children must always be respected. Since undue publicity or wrong labeling can cause harm to them, children who are victims of abuse or in conflict with the law shall not be identified, directly or indirectly. Any information that might cause them to be identified shall not be aired.”
The stated “Jenny” in the article is unethical because it can be perceived as the kid’s real name since no disclaimer whether “Jenny” is just a fake name. This may cause harm and unease for the kid if she usually plays in MMDA park, which may be the closest playground to her home and more so because playmates usually know each other by first name basis
Source:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/04/16/15/security-guard-accused-molesting-10-year-old
KBP Broadcast Code of the Philippines 2007
LikeLike
Vicky Ella
Resubmitting the FOI Commentary
Originally submitted via email on the day of the deadline (March 20)
“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.”
End Notes
1Based on a review by the Southeast Asian Press Alliance in 2002, as cited in Banisar, D. (2006). Freedom of information around the world 2006: A global survey of access to government information laws. Retrieved March 20, 2015 from freedominfo.org documents global survey2006
2The LawPhil Project: Arellano Law Foundation. (n.d.) 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved on March 20, 2015 from lawphil net cons1987
3op.cit
4Ibid.
5Freedom of information. (n.d.) Retrieved March 20, 2015 from cmfr-phil.org/freedom-of-information
6Freedom of information bill. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2015 from gov.ph foi
7As cited in Banisar (2006).
LikeLike