Law on Mass Media Right of Access to Information on matters of Public Concern (4th Exercise: PROFESSIONALIZING THE PRACTICE) (Deadline: Wednesday Sept. 12 at 5pm)
UPDATED today Sept. 10: Notes on the Fourth Bonus as described below: For Law on Mass Media students: FOR THE FOURTH BONUS: Since you are taking up Law on Mass Media in this section and have been provided with sufficient discussion on specific rights and duties as laid down in the Constitution and statutory provisions, you need to illustrate through this exercise that you know how to apply what you learned. Generalities (such as “rights under the law” or “human rights violations” are too vague for a student taking up Law on Mass Media in this section.) Failure to specify the constitutional and statutory provisions as basis of your answer will result in a score of zero. Second, the letter-request or demand letter should state that it is being made in order that the party requesting would not be compelled to resort to administrative, civil, and criminal remedies etc. (If your request is denied, you would need to send a more strongly worded demand letter, if you have no lawyer or no access to legal assistance, you would need to consult textbooks on Remedies and Legal Forms to see the template.). Finally, please check your grammar and syntax not for anything else, pero para hindi kayo pagtawanan sa sinulat nyo; maaari ring isulat sa Filipino o Pilipino kung mas kumportable kayo rito. Thank you for your work in this class. -marichu
Please illustrate the right of access to information on matters of public concern: Choose a news report or news report from July 1 to the present date that is based on the use of information contained in public records or a news event which involves public records or the use of information contained in public records, for example: 1)The storification of government transactions/ use of public funds/ procurement of equipment/ government infrastructure/ government action/ government contracts/ etc. all based on public records or … 2)The storification of data/ big data/ research data/ statistics/ records or documents from any government agency For the Bonus Post: The Bonus Post has been expanded: Write a simple 5-paragraph letter-request / demand letter addressed to the head of a government agency of the executive branch or any of its division or offices, asking for access to specific public records not available in the e-FOI website https://www.foi.gov.ph/ . In your letter-request/ demand letter, you may follow this outline: 1.state the name of the addressee and the government agency; 2.state the name of your publication/ site/ organization/ office; 3.state the function of your office/ mandate of your organization; 3.state your purpose; 4.state your business: What records do you need to view and access, and for what purpose; SPECIFY WHAT DOCUMENTS YOU NEED TO VIEW (if you fail to specify, the score is zero) 5.state your legal basis (the constitutional provision discussed in class and provisions of the FOI Executive Order); 6.give a deadline or state the number of days after which you will be compelled to avail of the remedies provided by law. Make sure that the records you seek to access and view are not available in https://www.foi.gov.ph/ otherwise you will get zero for this exercise.
You will find this exercise useful in your actual practice of the profession.
Do not post your comments here. Please type them under the original post with link pasted above.
If you’re too lazy to go to that post, here is the updated bonus exercise (embedded below, but do not post here).
1.A group of UP students and faculty members issued a statement today calling for the banning of the Marcoses (Imee Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Imelda Marcos) and groups associated with them, from using any UP facility. Does this violate any constitutional right of the Marcoses? Does it violate their right to free speech and freedom of assembly? Why or why not? Explain (Or: Specifically, as outsiders, if they are not allowed to use any UP facility, would such a “ban” be an unconstitutional restraint on their right to free speech? )
2.Would the ban be a form of discrimination that constitutes a violation of the Constitution, specifically the right to “equal protection of the law” clause? (Or: Specifically: Would the “ban” be a form of discrimination against a class of persons based on their political beliefs, as to be unconstitutional? ) Why or why not? Explain.
3. Or : Would the “ban” be simply an action similar to declaring a certain individual, or certain individuals, persona non grata, resulting in barring said person ,or persons, from entering a specific locality — legally and lawfully practised by local governments? Explain (explain by using a modicum of research).
