I UNIVERSITY of the PHILIPPINES Bachelor of Arts In

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Bachelor of Arts in Journalism Lois Joy G. Guinmapang Ma. Zarina A. San Jose

The Press in a Democracy: A Comparative Historical Analysis of the Non-Passage of the Freedom of Information Act from 1992-2012

Thesis Adviser: Professor Lucia P. Tangi College of Mass Communication University of the Philippines Diliman

Date of Submission April 2013

Permission is given for the following people to access this thesis

Available for general public Yes Available only after consultation with authors/thesis adviser No Available only to those bound by confidentiality agreement No

Students’ signatures: Signature of thesis adviser:

The Press in a Democracy: A Comparative Historical Analysis of the Non Passage of the Freedom of Information Act from 1992-2012

Lois Joy G. Guinmapang Ma. Zarina A. San Jose

has been accepted for the degree of BACHELOR of ARTS in JOURNALISM by

Professor Lucia P. Tangi

and approved for the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication by

Dr. Rolando B. Tolentino Dean, College of Mass Communication iii

UNIVERSITY PERMISSION PAGE

We hereby grant the University of the Philippines non-exclusive worldwide, royalty-free license to reproduce, publish and publicly distribute copies of this thesis or dissertation in whatever form subject to the provisions of the UP IPR policy and any contractual obligations, as well as more specific permission marking on the Title Page.

Specifically we grant the following rights to the University:

a) To upload a copy of the work in the theses database of the College of Mass

Communication Journalism department and in any other databases available on the public internet;

b) To publish the work in the College of Mass Communication journal, both in print and electronic or digital format and online; and

c) To give open access to above-mentioned work, thus allowing “fair use” of the work in accordance with the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines

(Republic Act No. 8293), especially for teaching, scholarly, and research purposes.

Lois Joy Guzman Guinmapang Ma. Zarina Almeda San Jose

2009- 01097 2009-10528 iv

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

PERSONAL DATA

Name Guinmapang, Lois Joy Guzman

Permanent Address 2335 A Callejon H, Cabo St., Gagalangin Tondo, Manila

Date of Birth 29 January 1993

Telephone Number (+63) 917 550 6243

E-mail Address [email protected]

EDUCATION

Primary Level Philippine Women’s University - Jose Abad Santos Memorial School – Manila (PWU-JASMS Manila)

Secondary Level Manila Science High School (MSHS)

AFFILIATIONS Member, Interdependent Student-Centered Activism

Member, University of the Philippines Advertising Core

Public Relations Officer, State Varsity Christian Fellowship – Diliman

WORK EXPERIENCE Intern, Rappler, April-June 2012

Intern, Storyline ANC, June-July 2012

ACHIEVEMENTS College Scholar, 1st and 2nd Semesters, AY 2009-2010, 2nd Semester AY 2011-2012, 1st Semester, AY 2012-2013

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

PERSONAL DATA

Name San Jose, Ma. Zarina Almeda

Permanent Address Lot 2C Block 12 M. Consing St. BF Resort Village Las Pinas

Date of Birth 9 January 1992

Telephone Number (+63) 917 807 0687

E-mail Address [email protected]

EDUCATION

Primary Level Second Honors, PAREF Woodrose School, Inc.

Secondary Level Second Honors, PAREF Woodrose School, Inc.

AFFILIATIONS Vice Chairperson for External Affairs, Union of Journalists of the Philippines UP Diliman

Secretary General, Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP

WORK EXPERIENCE Intern, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, April-May 2012

ACHIEVEMENTS College Scholar 1st and 2nd Semesters, AY 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 1st Semester, 2012-2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, we would like to thank our thesis adviser, Prof. Lucia P.

Tangi, for her presence and availability. Her input and suggestions have truly helped this study take shape, and we will always be grateful for her undying patience.

We would also like to express our infinite gratitude to our parents, Mr. Peter and

Marcia Guinmapang, and Mr. Manny and Bernie San Jose for their ceaseless support. We would never reach this milestone if not for your selflessness and understanding. Thank you for strengthening us with your words of love and inspiration. Thank you for prodding us to be better.

We would also like to thank our friends, Eunice, Dik, Trina, Dawn, Princess, Jiru,

Rich, Carla, Mich and Iyay. Thank you for being there in times of stress and relaxation, and for being one with us in tears and in laughter. You have made our college lives truly memorable.

To our organizations, thank you for also being another part of our support system, for being one of the first people who helped us adjust to college life and stay sane in it.

To each and every one of our interviewees, we would like to commend you for your dedication to the passage of this bill. Thank you for accommodating us in spite of your busy schedules, and for sharing with us your insights and experiences. Your fight is not over. And we, too, are hopeful of its near victory.

And lastly, we would like to thank our amazing God, in whom we live and move and have our being, and by whose grace and strength we can do all things. vii

DEDICATION

To the citizens of this country

whose right it is to know

what goes on inside the

government that’s supposed to serve them.

And to the freedom fighters,

our struggle continues.

viii

ABSTRACT

Guinmapang, L. J. G. and San Jose, M. Z. A. (2013). The Press in a Democracy: A

Comparative Historical Analysis of the Non-Passage of the Freedom of Information Act from 1992-2012. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, University of the Philippines

College of Mass Communication.

This study followed the journey of the Freedom of Information Bill in Philippine legislature since it was first filed in 1992 until its “death” in February 2013. It found out three main things: (1) a qualitative discussion on the bills that have been filed from 1992-

2012, (2) the “experiences” the FOI bill and its advocates have undergone, and (3) the contributors and obstacles to the passage of the bill. The study revealed that a total of 44 bills have been filed each at the House of Representatives and the Senate from 1992-

2012. The bill had almost been passed during the 14th congress but failed due to a lack of quorum. As of this writing, the bill has also been considered “dead” for the 15th congress.

Based on the interviews, the study also revealed that some of the factors that affect the passage of the bill are the President’s support and the lack of public demand for it.

However, the biggest factor contributing to its non passage is resistance from the legislators at the House themselves, that is, passing a bill that could possibly unseat them.

In the end, however, the freedom of information remains a right and a vital part in a democracy where the main thrust is an informed citizenry.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i

Approval Sheet ii

University Permission Page iii

Biographical Data iv

Acknowledgements vi

Dedication vii

Abstract viii

Table of Contents ix

List of Tables xii

List of Figures xiii

I. INTRODUCTION 1

A. Background of the Study 1

B. Statement of the Problem and Objectives 6

C. Significance of the Study 7

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 8

A. Press in a Democracy 8

B. Press Freedom, Democracy and Freedom of Information 9

C. FOI: International Law 11

D. India: A Case Study 12

E. FOI: Philippine Context 15 x

F. Access to Information in Southeast Asia 16

III. STUDY FRAMEWORK 19

A. Theoretical Level 19

B. Conceptual Level 22

C. Operational Level 24

D. Operational Definition of Terms 27

IV. METHODOLOGY 28

A. Research Design and Methods 28

B. Concepts and Indicators 29

C. Data Gathering 29

D. Data Analysis 32

E. Research Instrument 32

F. Scope and Limitations 33

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35

A. History of the FOI 50

B. Contributors and Obstacles to the Passage of the FOI 60

C. Comparison of Recent Bills 66

VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 85

A. Summary 85 xi

B. Recommendations 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY 90

APPENDICES 93

A. House Bill 3732

B. House Bill 6766

C. Senate Bill 3208

D. House Bill 53

E. Interview Transcript Representative Lorenzo Tanada III

F. Interview Transcript Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan

G. Interview Transcript Senator Antonio Trillanes III

H. Interview Transcript Red Batario

I. Interview Transcript Ed Lingao

J. Interview Transcript Vincent Lazatin

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1 Matrix of Bills from 1992-1995 35

2 Matrix of Bills from 1995-1998 36

3 Matrix of Bills from 1998-2001 37

4 Matrix of Bills from 2001-2004 38

5 Matrix of Bills from 2004-2007 40

6 Matrix of Bills from 2007-2010 43

7 Matrix of Bills from 2010-2012 45

8 Comparison of consolidated bills 67

9 Comparison of Tanada bill and Malacanang Version 82

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title Page

1 Allocution Theory Model 20

2 Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication 22

3 Conceptual application Allocution Theory 23

4 Conceptual application of Shanon and Weaver model 24

5 Framework operational model 26

I. INTRODUCTION

Tension arose at the House of Representatives in its last few days of session before taking a recess for the May 2013 election campaign period. Many legislators, civil society groups, media organizations and other individuals anticipated the tackling of a bill that has been awaiting legislation for a little over three decades. But with seeming disregard from President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III and most legislators, and despite numerous campaigns pushing for its passage, the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill is back to square one.

A. Background of the Study

1. Importance and Need for an FOI Bill

In recent years, the Philippines has been hailed among the most corrupt countries in the Asia; gaining top ranking with a score of 9.4 out of 10 (0 being the least corrupt and 10 the most) in a 2007 survey among foreign investors conducted by the Political &

Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC). In 2011, the country’s rate dipped to an 8.9, poorer that 2010’s score of 8.25. While there has been a drastic change in the figures from 2007, it is safe to say that the country still suffers from widespread fraudulence.

President Aquino’s 2010 presidential campaign banked on the slogan “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap” and has promised to push for transparency and government accountability as a means to end corruption. But after three years, the president’s promise to support the passage of the FOI bill has failed to be concretized into actions.

Freedom of information is a key component of a true democracy and is guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution under the Bill of Rights, Article III Section 7 which states:

Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern

shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and

papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to

government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be

afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

This right to information is also recognized in international law. Article 19 of the

Universal of Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), adopted in 1948, acknowledges that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right

includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive

and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of

frontiers.

Meanwhile, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), signed by over 150 countries including the Philippines, also included provisions similar to the UNDHR. According to Article 19 of ICCPR:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of opinion.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall

include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of

all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in

the form of art or through any other media of his choice.

Freedom of information is a vital component in the workings of a free press which in turn is a necessary condition for an informed citizenry. Citizens can only exercise their rights fully or participate in decision making processes if they have access to reliable information. This is so democracy can be more enhanced by people who engage with their government institutions and voice out opinions based on facts and evidence. In a democratic state, freedom of information allows citizens to remain in control of the functions of the government composed of officials whom they themselves elected into office.

“They would get to know what’s happening inside the bureaucracy,” said Senator

Antonio Trillanes IV, one of the authors of the consolidated FOI bill in the Senate.

“Being voters, they have that right to demand certain information and make the seating administration more responsible and accountable for their actions (A. Trillanes, personal communication, January 21, 2013).”

Quezon province fourth district representative Lorenzo Tanada III, one of the

“FOI champions” in the 15th congress, added that, “as part of good governance [citizens] help the government perform its duty by getting the information [they] need. [They] are

4 able to monitor if the government is using their resources correctly or not (L. Tanada, personal communication, December 10, 2012).”

As there is no current law providing mechanics for the compulsory duty of offices to disclose transactions of public demand, having a bill that would guarantee this freedom of information becomes a necessity in order to address concerns such as the lack of a definite and speedy procedure as well as a definite scope for the access to information and the penalties for violating such.

In a manifesto, the Bantay FOI! Sulong FOI! Network said there is a need for a

Freedom of Information law “to institutionalize transparency as the mandatory norm, rather than a discretionary matter, for all elective and appointive officials, across all branches of government.”

Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan, convenor of Right to Know, Right Now

Movement told Transparencyreporting.net that “passage of the bill will give the current government credibility and (moral) high ground in its anti-corruption drive,” adding that

“in contrast, failure to pass the bill exposes its anti-corruption stance as mere rhetoric; it betrays the trust that the people gave it in the last elections.”

It is claimed that Representative Oscar Orbos filed the first Freedom of

Information Act in 1992. Two decades have passed with more than twenty bills filed in

Congress not being granted approval. The bill moved farthest during the 14th Congress when it was approved by the bicameral conference committee, ratified by Senate but killed in the House of Representatives.

According to Toby Macintosh of Freedominfo.org, the number of countries that have laws on FOI vary depending on the definition and stages on enactment. All things considered, Macintosh says the safest generalization would be around 90 countries.

2. Sweden and the first FOI Law

Sweden passed the first Freedom of Information Law called the Freedom of the

Press Act in 1766 and introduced the principle of open government or

Offtenlighetsgrundsatsen (Larsen and Walby, 2012).

According to the Act, everyone is entitled to gain access to “official documents” which may be in any form like text, video, soundclip, etc. However not all documents of public authority are considered “official.” There are “secret documents” specified by law.

The Act states the following allowable restriction of information regarding:

“1. the security of the Realm or its relations with another state or an

international organisation;

2. the central fiscal, monetary or currency policy of the Realm;

3. the inspection, control or other supervisory activities of a public

authority;

4. the interest of preventing or prosecuting crime;

5. the economic interest of the public institutions;

6. the protection of the personal or economic circumstances of private

subjects;

7. the preservation of animal or plant species.”

(Sweden Ministry of Justice, 2009)

But a more comprehensive list of exempted documents was made in the country’s 1980 Secrecy Act (Basinar, 2006). It was further updated to the Publicity and

Secrecy Act of 2009 which details what kind of information government agencies can keep secret, what type of document, under what circumstances and towards whom

(University College London, n.d.).

Manninem (2006) said the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act is conceived as the

“prerequisite” of the freedom of expression. The Act has gone through several developments from its formulation and implementation and has now been conceived as the “cornerstone” for the worldwide struggle for the freedom of information. Manninem adds that the freedom of information is also seen as the prerequisite of freedom of expression and that it will only be a “matter of time” because it will be acknowledged as an “integral part” of human rights.

B. Statement of the Problem

What has the freedom of information bill undergone since it was first filed in 1992?

C. Objectives

1. To trace the history of the FOI bill since it was first introduced in 1992;

2. To find out the various experiences that the FOI bill went through under

various administrations; and

3. To identify what factors have led to the non passage of the bill.

D. Significance of the Study

Being enshrined into constitution, numerous groups have sought the passage of an

FOI act for public accountability and the legitimacy of democratically elected governments. President Aquino himself mentioned during his 2010 campaign that he would support public access to information, yet aside from the Palace version of the bill which was drafted February this year, the public has yet to hear about further legislative measures which concern it.

By doing a historical analysis, the researchers intend to provide more depth to previous knowledge on the FOI through a careful and detailed comparison of the different versions filed from 1992-2012, from its proponents to its sanctions. The study is set on identifying how and why the bills have been hindered from being enacted by means of analyzing the events and legislative processes the different versions of the bill have gone through in the course of history.

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In all societies applying any type of political or economic system, the press has always been seen as a means of providing information to the citizens. Whether it is used for propaganda to advance certain political ideas or as a tool to check on the government, the main goal of the press is to be a catalyst of information.

A. Press in a democracy

The democratic framework which allows the citizenry to question and check government leadership has made the press assume the role of a watchdog over the exercise of power. In order to advance public interests, the press must take that adversarial position towards the government, viewing the people in them as “enemies” who must be watched “with distrust” (De Jesus, 1996, p. 27). The press must become the

“sentinel of the people’s rights and freedom,” making sure that the government does not misuse or overstep its powers (Feliciano, 1968, p. 173).

Serving as a watchdog helps towards the improvement of government

Media serves as a cornerstone for an effective democracy because it presents relevant information to the public and becomes a medium for different opinions. The purpose of the press is to provide news and information that will help the citizens engage ideas with one another, and express their preferences and problems to the people who govern them (De Jesus, 2008, p. 9).

Another of the enduring clichés to describe the press is that it is the “Fourth

Estate,” to serve as a monitor of government, a function that is supposedly derived from its role as a watchdog.

In the classical, British, sense, this referred to the press watching over the three other estates in Parliament (the Lords Temporal, the Lords Spiritual and the Commons).

The concept assumed that the press was free to perform its task because it was supposed to be free from government regulation and other constraints.

Thus, the capacity of the press to perform its function as the Fourth Estate, which in present conditions pertain to the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government, is premised on how free it is (Teodoro, n.d.).

And the level of freedom which the press enjoys, in turn directly affect the quality and quantity of information it produces, which then determines how effective it actually is for a democratic society.

B. Press freedom, democracy and freedom of information

Freedom of expression is a right guaranteed by numerous policies both internationally and locally.

According to veteran journalist Sheila Coronel (2001), “a free press provides a steady stream of information on corruption, the abuse of power and assorted forms of malfeasance.” Information empowers not just the press but also the citizens because it allows them to challenge government policy and denounce official abuse.

The value of freedom of speech and the exchange of information lies in the creation of an environment that is rich in perspectives and ideas (Petaja, 2009, p. 32). The

10 social responsibility theory also holds that freedom of expression is an individual’s means of perpetuating himself. It is also the source of society’s intelligence, “the seed from which progress springs” (Petersen, 1956, p. 102).

Thus, the public has a right of access to information, a basic right to be informed and it is the duty of the press to make this happen. But the government is also tasked not just of allowing this right but also actively promoting it.

The Commission of Freedom of the Press (or the “Hutchins Commission”) states that,

“If the freedom of the press is to achieve reality, government must set

limits on its capacity to interfere with, regulate or suppress the voices of

the press or to manipulate the data on which public judgment is formed.

Government must set the limits on itself, not merely because freedom of

expression is a reflection of important interests of the community, but

also because it is a moral right. It is a moral right because it has an

aspect of duty about it (Petersen, 1956, p. 102).”

The right of freedom to information is a necessary aspect of participatory democracy. People cannot assert their rights if they don’t know what these are.

Governments cannot be held accountable if the citizens are unaware of the actions of the people and institutions who lead them (Coronel, 2001, p. 5)

Venkat Iyer (2012, pp.6-16) sees a number of “desirable objectives” in recognizing the freedom of information (FOI):

1. Helps to make the government be accountable to the people being governed

2. By facilitating the acquisition of knowledge, it encourages self fulfilment

3. Acts as a weapon in the fight against corruption and base of power by state

functionaries

4. Contributes to improving the quality of official decision making

5. Enhances the participatory nature of democracy

6. Goes some way in redressing the inherent balance in power between the citizen

and the state

7. Strengthens the hand of the individual in his dealings with government

Thus, the main beneficiaries of having an FOI law is always the public because it is able to enhance their capacity to monitor wrongdoing and eventually enhance the transparency in governance to which the state is supposedly committed (Teodoro, n.d.).

C. FOI: International Law

The first FOI was passed by the Swedish parliament dubbed “His Majesty’s

Gracious Ordinance Relating to Freedom of Writing and of the Press” of 1766.

Fast forward to 1945, closely after the World War II, the United Nations was formed to replace the defunct League of Nations. This new organization aimed to promote and maintain healthy international relations and to uphold the people’s rights.

On December 10, 1948, Article 19 of the United Declaration of Human Rights validated that freedom of information is a fundamental human right.

Affirmed by this assertion, a global revolution on the number of laws upholding the right to information began to gain ground. This, according to FOI advocate Tony

Mendel, is not only the effect of international policy, but also an offshoot from the skyrocketing advances of information technology which “changed the whole way societies relate to and use information, and which have, broadly, made the right to information more important to citizens (Mendel, 2008, p. 4).”

Roger Vleugels’s Overview of All FOI Laws states that as of 2011, there are 88 national FOIAs, 175 sub-national FOIAs, and 3 international FOIAs. Countries in the A1 list, or the ones that have enacted FOI, are not only first-world countries such as the

United States, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan, but also developing countries such as India, Chile, and Jamaica. This means that the passage of a FOI is not limited to whether or not a country is industrialized or economically capable. Newly democratic countries such as Indonesia and Ethiopia have also adapted an FOIA. As for the

Philippines, the country is included in the overview’s B1 list, which enumerates those that are “more or less close to an FOIA.”

D. India: A Case Study

One of the countries that has recently passed and implemented a Freedom of

Information Act is India. Local FOI author Rep. Erin Tanada rated the bill an 8/10 in terms of effectiveness, saying the outcomes of India’s legislation have been significant in the country’s move toward transparency.

Before the bill was even passed, electoral candidates in India were already required “to submit affidavits containing their financial and criminal antecedents while filing nominations” (Daruwala and Nayak, 2007) as the Elections Commission publishes the information on its website.

In 2002, India’s Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission of India collect these affidavits and publicize them. This ruling was in response to a public interest litigation case filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms on the same year.

Political parties rallied together and even got the Union Government to pass an ordinance that nullified the court’s order. However in 2003, the court struck the ordinance down stating that it violated the voter’s fundamental right to information (Daruwala and Nayak,

2007).

In 2005, India’s freedom of information bill, dubbed the Right to Information

Act (RTIA) of 2005, was put into action. According to Prof. Alasdair Roberts who published a paper on the RTIA’s first four years of performance, citizens have been enthusiastic about the law, actively making use of it as evidenced by two million requests filed in its first two and a half years.

“Most of those requests are directed to offices of state and local

government. Many requests are intended to prod officials to deliver

promised services and benefits—such as rationed food, backpay and

pensions, roads and other public works, or teachers for primary schools.

Local action groups are learning how to integrate the law into their

campaigns against corruption. In one extraordinary case, non-

governmental groups in Orissa used the RTIA to show that official and

businessmen had stolen four million kilograms of rice intended for

distribution to the poor (Roberts, 2010).”

India’s RTIA is a decentralized law, being implemented in more than thirty five state and territorial governments within the country. Much is still to be improved on as implementation is uneven, varying per state, yet, this unevenness presents opportunities for these bodies to innovate (Roberts, 2010). One innovation is the Jaankari call center, which was undertaken by the state government of Bihar in partnership with a non- governmental organization, Parivartan. This call center allows individuals to make RTI requests through a single toll-free number. Service is provided in four languages. The application fee is charged to the caller's phone bill, and a reply is sent directly from the

PIO. (Centre for Good Governance and PriceWaterhouseCoopers as cited in Roberts,

2010).

Aside from the innovations in implementation, the RTIA can be considered more advanced than other FOIAs in terms of provisions. According to Aruna Roy of The

Guardian, the United Kingdom should learn from RTIA, as it is has greater control in terms of penalties for non-compliance in supplying information. If an official fails to give or delays information, a fine of 250 rupees would be collected per day.

The RTIA also has more ground in getting information from private companies. It recognizes that transactions and deals are not carried out by government alone, but with the assistance and funding of private entities and non-governmental bodies. In effect,

“the RTIA extends to non-governmental organizations that are ‘substantially financed,

15 directly or indirectly’ by government... No other FOIA-style law has a similar rule”

(Roberts, 2010).

E. FOI: Philippine Context

Now, the pressing need for an FOIA in the Philippines is making headway into mainstream consciousness as a greater chunk of the population clamours for a clean, transparent, and accountable government. In May 2012, the most powerful man in the judiciary, former Chief Justice Renato Corona, was impeached due to inaccuracies in his filed Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). On May 29, 2012, he was convicted by a 20-3 vote in the Senate.

Ateneo School of Government Dean Tony La Viña writes that the most critical lesson from the impeachment and conviction of Renato Corona is that the Philippines needs to pass a Freedom of Information Act as soon as possible.

“The fruits of the impeachment process will be best preserved if the

Filipino people can help create a culture of accountability and trust

between the leader and the led. FOI is a powerful tool to achieve that, to

pre-empt corruption by improving deterrence and enhancing citizen

participation in governance.

The approach also cultivates the healthy leader-led relationship so

essential to public support and trust in government. With the

impeachment of Renato Corona, we have shown the viability of

accountability from above. We, the Filipino people, must now complete

the picture, and provide accountability from below. From penalizing

officials, we must now help them make Philippine governance and

accountability work (La Viña, 2012).”

In actuality, findings from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

(PCIJ) state that when asked for the most basic documents such as records on health, education, public safety, business, SALNs, and civil registry and property, Local

Government Units (LGUs) of the National Capital Region are slow to address requests, having a tendency to neglect deadlines determined by regulation. The PCIJ noticed that the referral system in between offices unnecessarily hinders the process of attaining information.

According to the PCIJ, “the apparent inability of majority of Metro Manila local governments to respond quickly and fully to citizen requests for asset disclosure records of local officials, as well as documents on education, health, public safety and other essential services may well be a reflection of the Aquino administration’s own dithering over an FOI.”

F. Access to Information in Southeast Asia

Back in 2001, the PCIJ published its study in a book entitled “The Right to

Know: Access to Information in Southeast Asia.” The study examined the state of media and information access in eight countries in Southeast Asia (SEA) through a cross country survey that ranked the countries according to their “openness” in releasing

17 information to the public. The study found out that Philippines and Thailand were the most transparent countries at the time while Burma and Vietnam were the least transparent.

The Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia were classified as “democracies” wherein information and communications technology have helped in ousting “unpopular”

(that is, dictatorial) regimes. Along with the fall of dictatorships came the

“institutionalization of democracy” through new constitutions that guaranteed a wide range of freedoms, including those of information and expression. Further, the study claimed that the main concern of journalists and citizens in the Philippines and in

Thailand are “refining procedures for information access.”

Meanwhile, Cambodia, Malaysia and Singapore were described as “semi democracies” because their governments imposed laws containing harsh penalties on publication or airing of anything “that may be construed as inciting to hatred, disaffection or violence against the government.”

Burma and Vietnam were considered the least transparent among the eight SEA countries in the study. The PCIJ said the lack of information access is rooted in a

“general lack of freedom in society,” where Vietnam was a socialist state and Burma was under military rule.

The PCIJ concluded that the “struggle for freedom of information cannot be taken separately from the struggle for democracy.” The most significant “openings” in information access were a result of the citizens’ involvement in asserting democratic movements.

Further, PCIJ noted that liberal information access “is not the panacea for social ills.” Access to information does not always guarantee the promotion of democracy and the advancement of social equity. There is a need to involve all sectors to use it properly.

Information serves as a catalyst that makes change possible.

Most literature related to the FOI discussed its importance to the workings of a free press and a democracy. The review of related literature showed the principles in which the freedom of information is built and how it should be used. The researchers found no study tackling a detailed history of why the FOI bill has not been passed in the

Philippines. The researchers hope to contribute to the passage of the FOI bill by giving knowledge on its legislative history from where the legislators and other stakeholders may learn.

III. FRAMEWORK

A. Theoretical

The researchers agreed on certain assumptions in order to choose the appropriate theories for the study. However, these were also mainly based from the Social

Responsibility Theory. Theodore Peterson (1956) named six functions of the press under it:

 Servicing the political system by providing information, discussion and debate on

public affairs

 Enlightening the public so as to make it capable of self government

 Safeguarding the rights of the individual by serving as a watchdog against

government

 Servicing the economic system primarily by bringing together the buyers and

sellers of goods and services through the medium of advertising

 Providing entertainment

 Maintaining its own financial self sufficiency so as to be free from the pressures

of self interests

In a democratic system like the Philippines, the first three functions, especially that of serving as a “watchdog,” are of utmost importance.

Added to these, the researchers have also decided to include another assumption not part of the social responsibility theory- the assumption that the government does withhold information from the public for many reasons.

1. Allocution theory

McQuail (2002) defines “allocution” as the information flow from a “service center”

(C) to an individual consumer (i). It is assumed that the service center has an unlimited amount of information and only he decides what part of the “information stock” will be distributed to the participating consumers.

According to him, this kind of setup “resembles that of a slave-master relationship.”

Because the master owns more than the slave, C becomes the “central leader” and i, no matter how many they are, are the individual followers. The allocution pattern is only a one way form of communication thus only the C has control of the information and the i’s are merely receivers.

Figure 1. Allocution Theory Model

2. Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication

According to this model, a message begins from an information source which is transmitted to a receiver. But before that message is received, it must go through “noise” before it is conveyed to its destination.

The following are the factors Shannon and Weaver considered in their model (Dyer, et al., n.d.):

 Sender- The source of the information, where the message comes from. The

source sets the whole model into action.

 Encoder- The transmitter which converts the message into signals.

 Channel- The means by which the message is transmitted, be it verbal, written,

electronic, etc.

 Noise- It is the interference or distortion that changes the original message;

anything that can misconstrue what was originally sent from the source.

 Decoder- The interpreter which converts the message into one that the receiver

understands.

 Receiver- The receiver takes in the message the source has sent out. Once the

message has been received, the process has ended.

 Feedback- Feedback relates to the source whether their message has been

received or if it has been interpreted accurately.

Figure 2. Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication

B. Conceptual

In allocution, both the government and the media are “service centers” in their own right as they are both gatekeepers of “information stock.” However, since this study centers on government disclosure, the researchers opted to focus more on their side of gatekeeping as opposed to the media’s.

Figure 3. Conceptual application Allocution theory

The government has complete control over the depth of information it chooses to release, including what the content would be, when it would be published, and how that content would be presented. In an ideal situation and as recognized by the social responsibility theory, this information from the government should be made directly available to the general public without passing through any other channel.

For a more comprehensive picture of the study, the researchers chose to slightly modify Shannon and Weaver’s Communication Model. In this model, the government is the sender, and their public information offices, as well as transcripts, records, files, archives and press releases would be the encoder and the encoded, respectively. Note that in the encoding process, noise can already take place.

Figure 4. Conceptual application Shannon and Weaver model

Instead of having the channel go before the decoder as in the original model, the researchers deemed it fit to switch their positions in the diagram. The decoders of the information would be the newsmakers who interpret the encoded data from the government who would then trasmit the simplified message through print or electronic media. This process, again, is not safe from noise. Information distortion is a possibility.

Using print or electronic media as channels, the message would reach the people and would then generate positive, negative, or neutral feedback.

C. Operational

Using the modified version of Shannon and Weaver’s Model of Communication and the allocution theory, the researchers would like to expound on the semi-linear process of how the government chooses to keep and release information in the public sphere.

The study would work around the assumption that, in compliance to the parameters of democracy, as previously mentioned, the government is in itself a “service center” - one with a duty to its people to disclose sufficient records of their hearings,

25 dealings, and transactions without interfering with national security. It is helpful to note that whatever the government releases has already been filtered, and in essence, should not be self-destructive. This filtered information, though already made available to the public, would be picked up by media outfits for further interpretation, and would again be released to the public. It is through the public’s feedback, or their dealings with the government, that they reflect the quality of information that has been given to them.

In line with this, an FOI act would ensure that the information they receive through the media is attuned to actual government data, and would encourage them to be more participative in the dealings of this institution. An FOI act would allow the general public to check the facts for themselves, commend laudable government projects, and condemn political dishonesty, as it would give the media additional credibility, and would allow them to report the news faster, clearer, and more accurately.

Figure 5. Framework Operational Model

D. Operational definition of terms

1. channel- media (print or electronic)

2. Congress- legislative branch of the government

3. decoder- news organizations

4. encoder- government public offices, transcripts, records

5. freedom of information- exercise of one’s right to seek and get information

from the government

6. House of Representatives- part of the legislative branch composed of district

representatives and party list representatives

7. information- any knowledge, record, document, photographs, data, film and

sound material, electronic data stored or archived in whatever form or format

which are made, received or kept in any government agency

8. information source, service center- government

9. noise- conflict of interests from both media and the government (affiliations,

personal biases, editorial policies)

10. receiver, individual consumers- citizens, general public

11. Senate- another part of the legislative branch composed of nationally elected

officials

IV. METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design

The study is historical and comparative. It is qualitative in nature and it aims to answer why the Freedom of Information bill, despite its ten-year evolution, still has not managed to make it past the walls of Congress.

1. Paper Trail

Researchers will be spending most of their time at the records department of the

House of Representatives and the Senate collating all the FOI bills that have been filed since 1992. These bills are the study’s primary sources of information. The researchers will then compare the similarities and differences between the bills.

Aside from these, the researchers will also be gathering transcripts of the committee hearings wherein the bills were tackled in Senate and in the House of

Representatives to see the progress and development of these bills.

The thesis will also involve doing archival newspaper research to supplement the interviews and the other materials that will be gathered from the House and the Senate.

The researchers have chosen to only consult one newspaper, the Philippine Daily

Inquirer, due to lack of time and manpower to be able to check others.

2. People Trail

The researchers will be conducting interviews with the bills’ principal author/s and the other legislators who were involved with the bill at a certain time. These will be

29 in order that the researchers may gain a wider perspective on the bills and know the circumstances surrounding them, including what hindered their passage.

The researchers will also be approaching the different stakeholders of the bill.

These include the media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other private organizations involved in pushing for the passage of the bill. Their insights and analyses will be able to help the researchers fulfill the objectives of the study.

B. Concepts and Indicators

This study would trace the path undergone by the different versions of the

Freedom of Information Bill during the last decade. Working around the fundamental concept of freedom of information in a democracy, the indicators would be defined by how each version of the bill measures up to this given ideal in terms of its declared sanctions and exemptions, how far it has gone throughout the legislative process, and how and why it has been junked in relation to its circumstances.

C. Data Gathering

Because of the historical, qualitative nature of this research, the researchers will be getting most of their information from the records department of the HR and the

Senate, news articles, and through focus interviews of personalities who are involved in the passage of the bill.

The list of interviewees include:

1. Red Batario

Executive Director, Center for Community Development and Journalism

(CCJD)

CCJD was one of the organizations which formed part of the very first coalition of organizations forwarding the cause for a FOI bill.

Interviewed February 12, 2013 at Tomas Morato Quezon city

2. Vincent Lazatin

Director, Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN)

Along with CCJD, TAN also belonged to the first coalition of organizations for the passage of a FOI law.

Interviewed March 5, 2013 at Katipunan Quezon city

3. Ed Lingao

Multimedia Director, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

PCIJ is one of the organizations that have been most active in the campaign for the passage of an FOI bill. Along with TAN and CCJD, it is also one of the earliest members of the first coalition for the FOI.

Interviewed February 22, 2013 at Tomas Morato Quezon city

4. Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan

Secretary, Access to Economic Reforms

Convenor, Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition

Atty. Malaluan was one of the pioneer individuals who decided to form a coalition (then the Access to Information Network) pushing for the legislation of a bill to guarantee freedom of information and its passage.

Interviewed December 13, 2012 at West Avenue Quezon city

5. Representative Lorenzo Tanada III

Representative, 4th District, Quezon province

Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives (15th congress)

Rep. Tanada was known to be one of the legislative “champions” in helping pass a FOI bill, especially during the 15th congress when he served as the

“spokesperson” of alliances and other organizations who wished for a law on access to information.

Interviewed December 10, 2012 at Batasan Hills Quezon city

6. Senator Antonio Trillanes IV

Senator, 15th Congress

Sen. Trillanes was one of the early filers of a FOI bill in Senate during the

15th congress.

Interviewed January 21, 2013 at Roxas Boulevard Pasay city

D. Data Analysis

The researchers will be compiling vital information about the bills through a table. With the help of interviews and newspaper archives, they will be able to gain more knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the different bills and ultimately, to answer why a Freedom of Information Act in the Philippines has not yet been passed in all these years.

E. Research Instrument

These are some of the possible questions the researchers may ask their interviewees:

1. What is the need for an FOI act to be passed in the Philippines?

2. What impact would its passage have to the government? To the country as a whole?

3. What has your organization/office done to push for the passage of the bill?

4. Why do you think an FOI law has not been passed all these years?

These are only general questions that had been asked to all the interviewees. Other more specific questions arose depending on the position or affiliation of the person interviewed.

F. Scope and Limitations

The thesis would give an accurate account of the history of the Freedom of

Information bill based on a paper trail through government records of the bills and

Congress proceedings where each version of the bill was discussed.

The key-informant interviews with primary proponents, non-government supporters, critics, and adversaries were used to support and explain the information from the archival research. Because the research mainly relies on these, lack of interviews and little information gathered from the newspapers greatly affected the analysis and discussion the researchers had provided regarding the topic.

Also for the newspaper research, the writers of this thesis only checked the months and years in which there were FOI bills filed either at the lower house or at the

Senate. It would take too much time to go through all the years (from 1992-2012), thus the researchers decided to limit the scope of newspapers to be checked.

The research is mainly a historical study and not an investigative one. The main objective of the thesis was to give a historical overview of the FOI bill and what it had undergone since it was first filed in 1992.

1. Time Table

June to October Thesis proposal completion

October to December Data gathering: Archival research of filed FOI bills

(since 1992) at the House of Representatives and

the Senate

Early to mid January Interviews

Late January to February Data compilation

Early March First Draft

Mid March Revisions

Late March Second Draft

Early April Binding

2. Budget

Transportation: House of Representatives, Senate, Interviews P 1,000.00

Printing and photocopying: bills, committee hearing transcripts, other P 2,500.00 research data

TOTAL P 3,500.00

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

According to most reports and studies, the first Freedom of Information bill was filed by then Pangasinan First District Representative Oscar Orbos in 1992. Indeed, the first FOI bill at the House of Representatives (House) was filed by him on August 31,

1992. However, it had been earlier filed at the Senate. Senator Alberto G. Romulo filed the “Freedom of Access to Information Act” on July 1, 1992 while Senator Raul S. Roco filed the “Right to Information Act” a day after. Only Rep. Orbos’ version was filed at the House while two other versions were filed at the Senate after Senators Romulo and

Roco during the 9th Congress from 1992-1995.

Table 1.Matrix of Bills from 1992-1995

House of Representatives

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date filed Committee referred to Freedom of 1805 Oscar M. Orbos Information Act of 31-Aug-92 Public Information 1992

Senate

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date filed Committee/s referred to

Alberto G. Freedom of Access Public Information and *80 1-Jul-92 Romulo to Information Act Mass Media

Public Information and Right to Mass Media; Civil *206 Raul S. Roco 2-Jul-92 Information Act Service and Government Reorganization

Official Public Information and *777 Francisco S. Tatad Information Access 25-Sep-92 Mass Media Act of 1992

(sponsors) Access to Official Coseteng, Herrera, Public Information and 1242 Information Act of 21-May-93 Roco, Romulo, Mass Media 1993 Tatad

*Bills replaced by SB 1242 (substitute bill).

In the 10th Congress from 1995-1998, two FOI bills were filed at the House and three at the Senate. At the 11th Congress from 1998-2001, three bills were filed each at the House and the Senate.

Table 2.Matrix of Bills from 1995-1998

House of Representatives

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date filed Committee referred to The Access to Romeo G. 3018 Information Act of 31-Aug-95 Public Information Guanzon 1992

Freedom of Access 7608 Raul A. Daza 29-Jul-96 Public Information to Information Act

Senate

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date filed Committee referred to

Public Information and Access to Mass Media; Civil 946 Raul S. Roco 27-Jul-95 Information Act Service and Government Reorganization

Public Information and Official Mass Media; Civil 1004 Francisco S. Tatad Information Access 1-Aug-95 Service and Government Act of 1995 Reorganization

Public Information and Alberto G. Freedom of Access Mass Media; Civil 1038 3-Aug-95 Romulo to Information Act Service and Government Reorganization

Table 3.Matrix of Bills from 1998-2001

House of Representatives

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date Filed Committee Referred To

Freedom of Access 2884 Harlin C. Abayon to Information Act 25-Aug-98 Public Information

The Freedom of Jose Apolinario L. Information Act of 8196 Lozada Jr. 1999 1-Sep-99 Public Information

Freedom of Access **8947 Harlin C. Abayon to Information Act 16-Dec-99 Public Information ** Approved by the House on 11-Apr-00, transmitted to the Senate 12-Apr-00 and received on 17-Apr-00.

Senate

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date Filed Committee Referred To

Freedom of Access Public Information and 121 Juan Flavier to Information Act 30-Jun-98 Mass Media

Public Information and Official Mass Media; Civil Information Access Service and Government 358 Francisco S. Tatad Act of 1998 30-Jun-98 Reorganization Freedom of Information Act of Public Information and 1829 Franklin M. Drilon 1999 24-Nov-99 Mass Media

The following Congresses saw a rise at the number of bills being filed in both houses. During the 12th Congress, six bills were filed at the House and the seventh was filed as a substitute for the previous ones. Meanwhile only four were filed at the Senate.

Table 4.Matrix of Bills from 2001-2004

House of Representatives

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date Filed Committee Referred To Freedom of Apolinario L. Information Act of *83 Lozada Jr. 2001 2-Jul-01 Public Information

Freedom of Access *382 Harlin C. Abayon to Information Act 4-Jul-01 Public Information

Freedom of Access *780 Cynthia A. Villar to Information Act 6-Jul-01 Public Information

Romualdo T. Freedom of Access *4919 Vicencio to Information Act 10-Jun-02 Public Information

Freedom of *5609 Satur C. Ocampo Information Act 21-Jan-03 Public Information

Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Del R. De Guzman, J.R. Right to Nereus O. Acosta, Information Act of *5784 Mario Joy Aguja 2003 24-Feb-03 Public Information

Freedom of Access Jose Apolinario L. to Information Act 6671 Lozada Jr. of 2003 26-Jan-04 Rules *Bills replaced by HB 6671 (substitute bill).

Senate

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date Filed Committee Referred To Public Information and Mass Media; Civil Freedom of Access Service and Government 42 Juan Flavier to Information Act 30-Jun-01 Reorganization Public Information and Official Access to Mass Media; Civil Loren Legarda- Information Act of Service and Government 706 Leviste 2001 30-Jun-01 Reorganization Public Information and Mass Media; Civil Manuel B. Villar Freedom of Access Service and Government 1099 Jr. to Information Act 1-Jul-01 Reorganization Public Information and Freedom of Mass Media; Civil Information Act of Service and Government 1717 Blas F. Ople 2001 6-Sep-01 Reorganization Public Information and Mass Media; Civil Francis N. Freedom of Access Service and Government 1728 Pangilinan to Information Act 11-Sep-01 Reorganization

Public Information and The Right to Mass Media; Civil Francis N. Information Act of Service and Government 2508 Pangilinan 2003 26-Feb-03 Reorganization; Finance

Public Information and Right to Mass Media; Civil Information Act of Service and Government 2631 Noli de Castro 2003 12-Aug-03 Reorganization; Finance

At the 13th Congress from 2004-2007, five bills were filed at the House, with the sixth being the substitute. Six bills were also filed in Senate. The researchers also noticed that it was in this Congress that most of the bills filed had numerous authors and/or sponsors unlike in previous Congresses wherein the FOI bills only named one or two representatives as its authors (except for substitute bills).

Table 5.Matrix of Bills from 2004-2007

House of Representatives

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date Filed Committee Referred To

Freedom of Access *784 Harlin C. Abayon to Information Act 1-Jul-04 Public Information

Satur C. Ocampo, Teodoro A. Casino, Joel G. Virador, Crispin B. Beltran, Rafael V. Mariano, Liza L. Maza, Abraham B. Mitra, Lorenzo R. Tanada III, Eduardo C. Freedom of *2123 Zialcita Information Act 4-Aug-04 Public Information

Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, Del R. De Guzman, Lorenzo R. Tanada III, Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario J. Aguja, Ana Freedom of Access Theresia H. to Information Act *2993 Baraquel of 2004 22-Sep-04 Public Information Ernesto C. Pablo, Edgar L. Valdez, Sunny R.A. Electronic Access *3041 Madamba to Information Act 23-Sep-04 Public Information Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario J. Aguja, Ana Right to Theresia H. Information Act of *3580 Baraquel 2004 11-Jan-05 Public Information

Abayon, Ocampo, Casino, Villanueva, de Guzman, Pablo, Freedom of Access Valdez, Madamba. to Information Act 6106 Rosales, Aguja of 2007 8-Feb-07 Rules *Bills replaced by HB 6106 (substitute bill).

Senate

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date Filed Committee Referred To

Improvement of Luisa “Loi” P. Information Access Public Information and 148 Ejercito Estrada Act 30-Jun-04 Mass Media

Manuel B. Villar Freedom of Access Public Information and 776 Jr. to Information Act 30-Jun-04 Mass Media

Freedom of Information Act Public Information and 1112 Franklin M. Drilon of 2004 30-Jun-04 Mass Media

Official Ramon Bong Information Access Public Information and 1206 Revilla Jr. Act of 2004 1-Jul-04 Mass Media

Improvement of Miriam Defensor Information Access Public Information and 1600 Santiago Act 3-Aug-04 Mass Media

Sergio R. Osmena Freedom of Public Information and 1633 III Information Act 4-Aug-04 Mass Media

During the 14th Congress, nine bills were filed at the House, with a 10th being a substitute. Meanwhile, the 14th Congress saw the first substitute bill from the Senate. Six bills were previously filed before the substitute.

Table 6.Matrix of Bills from 2007-2010

House of Representatives

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date Filed Committee Referred To

Juan Edgardo M. Freedom of Access *194 Angara to Information Act 2-Jul-07 Public Information

Freedom of Access Emmanuel Joel J. to Information Act *997 Villanueva of 2007 10-Jul-07 Public Information

Joseph Emilio A. Freedom of *1665 Abaya Information Act 1-Aug-07 Public Information

Emmylou J. Talino-Mendoza Freedom of Access and Emmanuel to Information Act *2021 Joel J. Villanueva of 2007 13-Aug-07 Public Information

Lorenzo R. Tanada Freedom of III and Del R. De Information Act of *2059 Guzman 2007 14-Aug-07 Public Information

Aurelio D. Freedom of Access *2176 Gonzales Jr. to Information Act 22-Aug-07 Public Information Satur C. Ocampo, Teodoro A. Casino, Liza L. Maza, Crispin B. Beltran and Luzviminda C. Freedom of *2223 Ilagan Information Act 23-Aug-07 Public Information

Electronic Access *2293 Ernesto C. Pablo to Information Act 29-Aug-07 Public Information

Freedom of Ana Theresia H. Information Act of *3116 Baraquel 2007 21-Nov-07 Public Information (sponsors) Bienvenido M. Abante Jr., Freedom of Lorenzo L. Tanada Information Act of **3732 III 2008 10-Mar-08 Rules *Bills replaced by HB 3732 (substitute bill).

**Approved on third reading on 12-May-08. Senate agreed on bicameral conference committee report on 01-Feb-10 but House failed to pass the bill due to lack of quorum.

Senate

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date Filed Committee Referred To

Official Information Public Information and *16 Ramon Revilla Jr. Access Act of 2007 30-Jun-07 Mass Media

Free Information Public Information and *109 Mar Roxas Act 30-Jun-07 Mass Media

Official JinggoyEjercito Information Public Information and *576 Estrada Access Act of 2007 2-Jul-07 Mass Media

Improvement of JinggoyEjercito Information Access Public Information and *592 Estrada Act 2-Jul-07 Mass Media

Manuel B. Villar Freedom of Access Public Information and *1578 Jr. to Information Act 12-Sep-07 Mass Media

Freedom of Information Act Public Information and *2571 Loren Legarda of 2008 27-Aug-08 Mass Media Ramon A. Revilla Jr., Jinggoy P. Ejercito-Estrada, Manuel B. Villar Jr., Alan Peter S. Public Information and Cayetano, Pia S. Freedom of Mass Media; Civil Cayetano, Juan Information Act of Service and Government **3308 Miguel F. Zubiri 2009 3-Jun-2009 Reorganization *Replaced by SB 3308 (substitute bill).

**Passed third reading on 14-Dec-09. Senate agreed on bicameral conference committee report and approved the bill on 1-Feb-10 and was transmitted back to the House.

Finally, in the 15th Congress (2010-2013), there are 15 FOI bills currently filed at the House with the last being a substitute. The Senate is not far behind with 14 FOI legislations filed, the last also a substitute.

Table 7.Matrix of Bills from 2010-2013

House of Representatives

Bill No. Principal Author/s Short Title Date Filed Committee Referred To

Freedom of Information Act of *11 Rodolfo Biazon 2010 1-July-10 Public Information

Freedom Of Marcelino R. Information Act Of *22 Teodoro 2010 1-July-10 Public Information

Freedom Of Lorenzo R. Tanada Information Act Of *53 III 2010 1-July-10 Public Information

Freedom Of Karlo Alexei B. Information Act Of *59 Nograles 2010 01-July-10 Public Information

Freedom Of Juan Edgardo M. Information Act Of *86 Angara 2010 01-July-10 Public Information An Act To Ensure Public Access To Official Records, Documents And Any Other Information Of Teodoro A. Casino Public Concern Or and Neri J. Freedom Of *133 Colmenares Information Act 1-July-10 Public Information

Walden F. Bello Freedom of and Arlene J. Bag- Information Act of *301 ao 2010 1-July-10 Public Information

Right to Access Pedro P. Information Act of *830 Romualdo 2010 4-July-10 Public Information Freedom of Information Sergio A.F. and Protection of *1713 Apostol Privacy Act of 2010 26-July-10 Public Information

Freedom of Rachel Marguerite Information Act of *1968 B. Del Mar 2010 29-July-10 Public Information

Freedom of Information Act of *2128 WinnieCastelo 2010 04-Aug-10 Public Information

Salvador H. Freedom of *2969 Escudero III Information Act 02-Sep-10 Public Information Freedom of Information and Rodolfo W. Transparency Act *4252 Antonino of 2011 21-Feb-11 Public Information

Freedom of Information Act of *4851 Sherwin N. Tugna 2010 09-Jun-11 Public Information

Joseph Victor G. *6555 Ejercito 11-Sep-12 Public Information Biazon, Teodoro, Tanada, Nograles, Angara, Colmenares, Belo, Bag-Ao, Romulado, Apostol, del Mar, Castelo, Escudero, Antonino, Tugna, Herrero, Evardone, An Act Herrera-Dy, Cruz- Strengthening the Gonzales, Sy- Right of Citizens to Alvarado and Information held by 6766 Hataman- Sallivan the Government 17-Dec-12 Rules *Substituted by HB 6766 (substitute bill).

Senate

Bill No. Author/s Short Title Date Filed Committee Referred To

Freedom of Antonio F. Information Act of Public Information and 11 Trillanes IV 2010 1-July-10 Mass Media

Freedom of Ramon “Bong” Information Act of Public Information and 25 Revilla Jr. 2010 1-July-10 Mass Media

Freedom of Public Information and 126 Sergio Osmena III Information Act 5-July-10 Mass Media

Freedom of Francis N. Information Act of Public Information and 149 Panglinan 2009 6-July-10 Mass Media

Freedom of Teofisto “TG” Information Act of Public Information and 158 Guingona III 2010 6-July-10 Mass Media

Freedom of Juan Mguel F. Information Act of Public Information and 162 Zubiri 2010 6-July-10 Mass Media

Freedom of Access Public Information and 1254 Manny Villar to Information Act 12-July-10 Mass Media

Freedom of Information Act of Public Information and 1440 Loren Legarda 2010 12-July-10 Mass Media

Freedom of Public Information and 2086 Francis Escudero Information Act 27-July-10 Mass Media

Freedom of Gregorio Honasan Information Act of Public Information and 2189 II 2010 28-July-10 Mass Media

Miriam Defensor Freedom of Public Information and 2283 Santiago Information Act 2-Aug-10 Mass Media

Freedom of Alan Peter Information Act of Public Information and 2354 Catyetano 2010 4-Aug-10 Mass Media People's Ownership of Government Gregorio Honasan Information (POGI) Public Information and 3183 II Act of 2012 7-May-12 Mass Media Antonio F. Trillanes, Ramon A. Revilla Jr., Sergio R. Osmena III, Francis N. Pangilinan, TeofistoGuingona III, Manny B. Villar, Loren B. Legarda, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Francis G. Escudero, People's Ownership Gregorio B. of Honasan II, Alan Government Peter Cayetano, Information (POGI) Public Information and **3208 Franklin M. Drilon Act of 2012 23-May-12 Mass Media **Approved on third reading on 17-Dec-12.

Summing up, from 1992-2012, or in a span of 20 years, 44 FOI bills have been filed each at the House and the Senate.

The next parts will give a more in depth and detailed discussion of the circumstances surrounding the FOI bills based on what the writers will have gathered from their interviews and newspaper archival research.

A. History of the FOI

1. Developments from the different Congresses

During the course of this research, the writers encountered difficulty finding information on the early beginnings of the FOI bill. No articles came out in the newspaper and even the interviewees could not give any information as to how and why a bill to guarantee freedom of information started in the Philippine legislature.

However, Ed Lingao, Multimedia Director of the Philippine Center for

Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), said this could have been because there were really

“other things that appeared on the plate of everybody else that time.” For one, the year the first bill was filed, which was in 1992, was also the year the country held its first presidential elections since the EDSA People Power. Lingao also added that during this time the Government of the Republic of the Philippines had ongoing peace talks with the

National Democratic Front of the Philippines(E. Lingao, personal communication,

February 22, 2013).

Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan, secretary of the Access to Economic Reforms

(AER) and convenor of the Right to Know, Right Now! (R2KRN) coalition, said it was at the latter part of the 11th congress and the beginning of the 12th that the AER discovered other organizations who shared the same sentiment about the freedom of access to information. The AER had organized a forum regarding the FOI and had met these other groups, like the Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN) and other media groups, for a passage of a bill that would guarantee FOI (N. Malaluan, personal communication, December 13, 2012).

Malaluan also said that after the forum, “we decided to engage in the legislative process.” They talked to different representatives and senators regarding their advocacy and Malaluanclaimed that it was during the 12th congress where the “the first bill of FOI that embodied some level of consultation with public interest organizations” was filed.

It was in 2001 when the Access to Information Network (ATIN) was formed.

Malaluan said the some of the first members of ATIN were the Philippine Center for

Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and the Transparency and Accountability Network

(TAN). There were other legal and public interest groups who formed part of the network. Malaluan said all the members agreed “that part of the problem was the absence of a more comprehensive FOI legislation that would supplement what is guaranteed in the constitution.”

It was also in 2001 when PCIJ released a book entitled “Access to Information in

Southeast Asia.” The book “examines the state of media in these [SEA] countries and the obstacles faced by journalists and citizens who wish to obtain access to public records

(PCIJ, 2001).”

However for Red Batario, executive director of the Center for Community

Journalism and Development, because a more “concerted effort” for the FOI was just beginning, it did not really “take off” during the 12th congress. The FOI was still not a priority for the legislators at the House of Representatives (R. Batario, personal communication, February 12, 2013).

In the 13th congress, Batario said they also started working with different international organizations to be able to “drum up support” for the passage of the bill.

Vincent Lazatin, director of the TAN, said the ATIN was still a very small group, composed of “maybe about less than 10 organizations.” Same as the 12th congress, the

13th also did not see any significant change or leap in terms of pushing for the legislation of an FOI bill. The impeachment of former President Joseph “Erap” Estrada happened in

2001. However this incident did not prove enough to jumpstart a public clamour for the passage of a bill that would guarantee the citizens information as to where their taxes go or as to where the president spends the people’s money. Malaluan said Estrada’s impeachment even “disrupted” the progression of the bill (V. Lazatin, personal communication, March 5, 2013)

In 2005, then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who took the seat upon

Estrada’s impeachment, was involved in an election-related controversy.

Also known as the “’Hello Garci’ Scandal,” the controversy involved President

Arroyo and then Election Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. In June 2005, audio recordings of a phone conversation allegedly between the both of them talking about the rigging of the 2004 national election results were released to the public. Allegations such as fraud and electoral cover up were thrown to Arroyo and some of her allies. There were also attempts to impeach her but then did not succeed. In 2006, the Department of Justice cleared Garcillano of the perjury charges filed against him.

Post 2005, Lazatin said more groups started to realize the importance of the freedom of information.

By the time the 14th congress came around in 2007, the R2KRN campaign, and the coalition along with it, began. That, in order to generate more public clamour for the

53 passage of the bill, a group of only ten media and anti corruption organizations had to get more members from other sectors, thus creating a larger coalition.

With a wider coalition came more activities. Both Batario and Lazatin said the formation of a broader coalition also led to the start of mobilizations to “put pressure on the legislators to pass the freedom of information.”

2. The 14th Congress: A Special Case

In a span of seven congresses (1992 to present), out of the 80 plus bills filed in both houses, it was only in the 14th Congress that the FOI bill would have become a law.

However, in the final step before the bill was to be sent to the president for signing, it was killed.

House Bill (HB) 3732, entitled “An Act Implementing the Right of Access to

Information on Matters of Public Concern Guaranteed Under Section Twenty-Eight,

Article II and Section Seven, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and for Other Purposes” or the “Freedom of Information Act of 2008,” was a substitute for nine bills which had been previously filed in at the House and referred to the committee on public information for deliberation.

On April 30, 2008, the bill passed second reading in the House. On May 12, it approved the bill with 197 out of 220 voting in favour of it. However it was still in May

2009 that the Senate conducted committee hearings that tackled its own version of the bill. A committee report was finalized and in June 3, 2009, the Senate Committee on

Public Information and Mass Media, headed by Senator Gregorio B. Honasan, filed

Senate Bill (SB) 3308 or the “Freedom of Information Act of 2009” in substitute for six bills previously filed. On December 2009, the bill passed its second and third reading in

Senate. In January 2010, a bicameral conference committee was formed to tackle revisions in the Senate and House bills (Panela, 2010, p.7).

The Senate approved the revised SB 3308 on February 1, 2010 and sent it back to the House for its third and final reading. On February 3, before going into recess to prepare for the May 2010 elections, the House failed to approve the bill for lack of quorum. Upon resumption on June 4, the House suspended the national canvassing of

May 10 votes supposedly to tackle pending legislative measures. This session was the bill’s last chance to become a law before the 15th Congress would open. Bienvenido

Abante, representative of the sixth district of Manila, moved to ratify the FOI bill but

Camiguin representative Pedro Romualdo objected and asked for a roll call. The House needed 135 present members to constitute a quorum. House speaker Prospero Nograles,

Davao first district representative, adjourned the session when the secretary general said there were only 128 present on the floor (Panela, 2010, p. 7).

Malaluan said it was in the 14th Congress when the movement realized the magnitude of political pressure. When it came to FOI, he admitted that “there is a very strong, unstated opposition with politicians. There is no one that says I oppose FOI bill but the actions run contrary to that public statement.”

Malaluan said it was made evident by what happened through the delays that had transpired in the lower house. According to him, legislators in the House, some, very influential, are very sensitive to criticism, thus causing the silent resistance to the bill.

When the bill was ready for ratification and the Chair refused to mention anything about it in the agenda, Malaluan revealed that the process might be simple, yet “even if you study the rules, it’s different from how it’s implemented.”

Regarding the lack of quorum, Malaluan admitted that although the advocates were trying to reach the members of congress to encourage them to join the commitment to put the bill to a vote, they already knew there were text messages going around asking congressmen not to attend. “When we got the roll call result of the day, we thought that, hey, the other groups that were asking congressmen not to come, who were members of congress themselves won the convincing.” But they found out that night of the following day that by their count, as well as videos and various statements of representatives who have attended, there were at least eight representatives actually present on the floor when the roll call was made, and there was, indeed a quorum on that day.

Malaluan pressed that a learning point from the quorum episode was the need for a mechanism to verify the numbers because the incident can happen again. “It can happen both ways – they might call a quorum when there aren’t a sufficient number of people on the floor. They can also call a non-quorum even if there are enough people.”

3. FOI during the 15th Congress

In the 15th Congress, the bill has received unbalanced attention from the House and the Senate. 10 bills have been filed in the House as Congress opened in July 2010, and a Technical Working Group (TWG) led by Rep. Erin Tanada was formed in February

2011, following the endorsement of the bill made by President Aquino in January of the same year. The TWG moved to consolidate the 15 bills filed in the House, including the provisions suggested by Malacañang. The substitute bill authored by Tanada has languished in the House for over a year, with Eastern Samar Representative and

Committee of Public Information Chairman Ben Evardone failing to call for hearings to discuss the FOI during 2011. The bill was next discussed during the March 13, 2012 hearing, followed by a hearing in October that reportedly got cancelled because there was a “lack of room” in which to conduct it. Tanada maintained that he found a room to conduct the hearing and thereby informed Evardone, yet his offer was dismissed because he “failed to coordinate” with Evardone from the start.

At the November 13, 2012 hearing, Nueva Ecija Rep. Rodolfo Antonino proposed the insertion of a Right of Reply provision which took up almost two hours of the session's time. When a motion was made and seconded to finally put the bill to a vote,

Antonino moved to adjourn the hearing due to a technicality.

The fourth hearing of the bill was on November 27, 2012, when the bill was finally approved in the committee level with 17 representatives voting for, 3 voting against, and 1 abstaining. After it was approved, however, Evardone called for another hearing to approve or sign the committee report instead of officially sending it over to the

57 plenary. “The practice here in the house by the different committees is that once a bill is approved, you just pass around the bill or ask somebody to go to the different members and have them signed,” said Tanada. In that light, according to him, this hearing can be considered another “delaying tactic” by the chair (L. Tanada, personal communication,

December 10, 2012).

In contrast to the sluggish pace of the bill in the House, its journey in Senate has proven to be more rewarding. On May 7 2012, Sen. Gregorio Honasan II filed SB 3183 or the People’s Ownership of Government Information (POGI) Act of 2012. This was then consolidated with the previous bills filed in Senate into SB 3208, the substitute bill of the same name. This bill breezed through Senate on its first and second reading, with

Sen. Miriam Defensor adding a couple of major amendments, all of which were easily accepted.

On December 17, 2012, the POGI bill went like a bullet through Senate on its third and final reading.

4. Recent Developments on FOI

Although the bill’s advocates have lobbied for it right after session resumed from the Christmas break, a blockade arose in the form of a sudden withdrawal of support from the Makabayan partylist bloc.

Nine days before congress closed for the upcoming election, Anakpawis Rep.

Rafael Mariano, ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio, Kabataan Rep. Raymond Palatino,

Gabriela Reps. Emmi de Jesus and Luzviminda Ilagan, and Bayan Muna Reps. Teddy

Casino and Neri Colmenares all pulled out backing in dissatisfaction with Malacanang’s move to insert provisions that exempt disclosure in areas regarding national security and executive privilege, “watering down” HB 6766, the current version of the FOI bill.

Casino also removed himself from co-authorship of this bill, saying this was no longer the genuine FOI he was pushing for.

Despite this, The Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition has issued a statement in support of the Aquino-endorsed bill a year prior to the Makabayan bloc’s withdrawal of support.

In their statement, the coalition said the President’s endorsement achieves two things. “First is it removes the main reason why the bill has been stalled in the legislative wringer, particularly at the House of Representatives, and second, it resolves the

‘concerns’ about the bill that the President has expressed, thereby reducing the danger of a Presidential veto.”

“I think (the Malacanang version) is something that is acceptable to the FOI advocates. We've bent a little on some areas and these are the areas which I think are not the non negotiables,” said Lazatin.

With the dilly-dallying of the House, and session formally closing last February 9,

2013, the Freedom of Information bill is officially “dead” in the 15th Congress.

5. Future for the FOI Bill

“The future for FOI is that it won’t go away. The politicians fear it but it won’t go

away because it’s a guarantee that people will demand. When it will be passed is a

matter of when. It‘s a matter of time.” – Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan

The freedom to give and receive information regardless of frontiers has been declared a human right by the United Nations in 2005. This leads the supporters of the bill to tenaciously seek its passage not only as a basic right and but also as a standard of democracy.

Lingao claimed the passage of the bill depends on the president. “If the president continues to waffle on the FOI, concern is that you might still not get an FOI even under a more democratic president.”

Sen. Trillanes, Batario, and Lazatin however agree that the bill’s passage could still be seen during Aquno’s term, most likely in the latter part of the 16th Congress. “By then, the Aquino administration would be going out, and he may use that, leave that as a legacy which cannot be used against him because he’s on the way out. The new policy now would be implemented during the next administration, which is definitely not

Aquino because he’s only good for one term,” said Trillanes.

“It's hard to be a president on a platform of good governance and daang matuwid without having the freedom of information, So perhaps towards the end of his term, we might see him supporting the bill,” added Lazatin.

The bill’s future also depends on building enough public clamour to add pressure on the legislators for its passage. Advocates of the bill have added that they have a lot of work to do in terms of making the bill an everyday issue for Filipino citizens, because as it is, it merely seems like a highfaluting piece of legislation that only the media would benefit from, which in fact, isn’t the case.

“People don't seem to be able to relate to FOI because they are not able to relate information with their daily lives,” said Batario, adding that it is a challenge for the advocates to campaign more vigorously in pursuit of a more heightened public awareness.

“You have to try to break the concept down into chewable pieces,” Batario added,

“because unless you have public support, like what happened with Cybercrime, nothing will happen.”

B. Contributors and Obstacles to the passage of the FOI

Numerous interconnected factors have both contributed to and hindered the passage of the FOI bill in the Philippines. To be discussed below are some of the most salient factors, as agreed upon by the interviewees for this thesis.

1. Presidential Support

All the interviewees agreed that a show of support from the president or a signal from him to prioritize the bill greatly affects its chances of getting passed into a law.

During the course of the FOI bill, none of the presidents have actively shown support for

61 the bill, which could have explained the slow pace of its passage throughout all these years.

Batario said that presidents have a “large effect” on the legislative process when they certify a bill as urgent. As Lingao put it, what is needed is a “clear, unequivocal support from the President.”

But this has not been evident throughout the history of the FOI. As earlier mentioned, only President Noynoy Aquino has expressed support for the bill but he has also continually shown otherwise, citing the lack of public clamour to be one of the main reasons for his inaction.

Lazatin, however disagreed, saying that was not the “real issue.”

“I think the president has discomfort with sharing information, especially the media,” he said. Lazatin added that two of Aquino’s fears are, (1) abuse of the information by the media and (2) abuse of the information by his political rivals or opponents.

“I don’t think he should be fearful of [those]. If he is on the daang matuwid, no matter what information people would dig up at throw at [him], if there’s nothing wrong, there’s nothing wrong, right?” he said.

But the president’s influence may also only be a small factor in the legislative making process. For example, President Arroyo never supported the bill (and the interviewees agreed she never would), but it was during her term that the bill got its farthest.

2. Public Clamour

Considering the issue of public demand for the bill, interviewees agreed that there is “substantive demand” but that it “isn’t enough.”

Batario said, “people don’t seem to be able to relate to FOI because they are not able to relate information with their daily lives.” Lazatin said people think it is a “very high level policy issue.”

For Batario, the FOI mainly catered to those involved in the campaign and they failed to engage other citizens, to whom the bill is also supposed to benefit. Batario added that there had been a failure to “generate public support” and that getting more citizens involved should be the focus of future campaigns, especially for the 16th congress.

Lingao, meanwhile, said the concept of the FOI is really “difficult to explain.”

People are more concerned with oil and rice prices.

“But as a voter or as a constituent, you should have the freedom to ask where the money of your barangay is going. Why does your health center lack budget, whereas your councillor seems to be getting richer?”

3. Right of Reply

Another major factor that has been the cause of delay in the passage of the FOI is the debate on the inclusion of a right of reply (ROR) provision in the proposed law.

Nueva Ecija Rodolfo Antonino’s version of the bill includes an ROR provision that allows any person involved in an issue relating to the obtained documents to explain

63 or account for the issue in the media. In an article by GMA News, Rep. Antonino reportedly “vowed” to block moved to approve the bill if it will not include his ROR provision (Calonzo, 2012).

Media groups have especially expressed strong opposition to the provision, stating that it violates press freedom and undermines editorial independence.

In a statement, supporters of the FOI said Rep. Antonino wasted time during the final committee hearing for the bill “on his redundant insistence on having his complaint heard.” According to the statement, Rep. Antonino had raised his issue regarding the

ROR and it had already been resolved then.

For Lazatin, the ROR is a “completely different issue” and should not have anything to do with freedom of information and insisted the FOI should not be held

“hostage” for an issue that does not have any constituency outside the walls of

Congress.”

4. Legislative body itself

But, the biggest factor that contributes to the passage or non passage of the bill is the lawmakers themselves. They agreed that much of the resistance comes from the

House of Representatives. None of them will outrightly say that they are against the bill’s passage but it has been evident in their dilly dallying and the delaying tactics that have been employed in discussing the FOI bill.

FOI advocates and supporters, for example, “speculated” that the June 4, 2010 session that was finally to approve the FOI bill during the 14th congress was “scripted by

[then House Speaker Prospero] Nograles and Malacanang (Panela, 2010, p.7).”

In a report by released by GMA News, Malou Mangahas of PCIJ wrote that

House leadership under Nograles “had [also] been found in default of audit and budget procedures by the Commission on Audit (COA).” Mangahas added that over the years the

House under Nograles had been awarding itself “bigger and bigger budgets.” Reportedly, many of the contracts for the renovation and adding of facilities to the House have raised allegations of being “overpriced and negotiated.”

Further, the article claimed that suspicion lingers that more secrets have been

“kept under lock and key in the House.” Supporters of the FOI have argued that the bill would have served the public well. There could possibly be other “skeletons in the closet” Nograles did not want exposed (Mangahas, 2010).

Forward to the 15th congress and another leadership has been put into question by

FOI advocates. In a statement released by the R2KRN dated November 13, 2012, the coalition accused Committee on Public Information Chairman Ben Evardone of being

“the biggest disappointment of all” through his “failure of leadership.”

Evardone had been scrutinized for employing several “delaying tactics” in discussing the bill during the 15th congress. Added to this, he had also been quoted to

“accuse” the President and members of the Liberal Party for the delay in the passage of the bill (R2KRN, 2012).

In a news report, Ifugao Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr. accused Evardone of protecting his “former allies” in the Arroyo administration, using it as an explanation for his resistance to the bill.

Rep. Tanada himself said it was his “lack of interest in calling for hearings with regard to the FOI” that had seriously hindered its passage in the 15th congress. Tanada said that had there been more hearings conducted, the issues concerning the FOI, including the inclusion of a right of reply section, would have been answered.

“Now the number of session days is limited, this is when he wants to call for a hearing to show he’s interested in the bill,” Tanada said.

Meanwhile, Batario claimed that because most of these representatives are still part of the “political elite,” they will not allow the passage of a law that could put their dynasties in danger. He also said that it was the Senate who had always been more open to the FOI bill, especially from the 13th-15th congresses.

According to Atty. Malaluan, the difference between Senate and House is that senators are more used to public scrutiny than congressmen. This could be one of the reasons why the bill differs drastically in pace in the two houses.

“Because they’re in the national limelight, under scrutiny by the media and various groups, they don’t fear transparency anymore. In contrast to the house, many are still not used to this. They’re very sensitive to criticism. And many of them would really rather not be noticed in the national scale.”

Added to this, Lingao said that because senators are elected on a national level they are “of a more sophisticated mindset.” For him, senators think more of what the media wants, unlike congressmen who “tend to pander more on patronage politics,” that is, what would enable them to be re-elected.

In a statement released September 2012, the R2KRN concluded the “real fear” about the FOI that makes legislators hesitant to support it “is that it will open the door to legitimate public scrutiny into their official acts and transactions, and enable the people’s right to know the good, the bad, and the ugly about them all.

C. Comparison of Recent Bills

The bills that have gone farthest in the legislative process are HB 3732, “The

Freedom of Information Act of 2008,” HB 6766, “The Freedom of Information Act of

2012,” and SB 3208, the "People's Ownership of Government Information (POGI) Act of

2012.”

Essentially, all the bills agree on the non-negotiable provisions such as mandating openness, accessibility, and accountability in all branches and offices of government, developing quick and efficient implementation of procedures, and conducting orderly appeal systems in case of denial of access. However, the bills differ in a few of its exceptions. Noting that HB 6766 is the direct result of the Aquino-mandated Technical

Working Group (TWG), and SB 3208 was based from HB6766, it can be seen that executive privilege has gained more control over exceptions in these two as compared to the one filed in the previous congress.

Table 8 contains a more in-depth comparison of the different bills’ provisions, exceptions, and liabilities. Full copies of said bills will be provided in the appendix.

Table 8. Comparison of consolidated bills.

HB 3732 HB 6766 SB 3208 Congress 14th 15th 15th Filed Authors Angara, Del Mar, Biazon, Teodoro, Trillanes, Revilla Jr., Villanueva, Cruz- Tanada, Nograles, Osmena III, Gonzales, Angara, Casino, PangilinanGuingona Abaya,TAliro- Colmenares, Bello, III, Villar, Legarda, Mendozat, Anadad, E Bag-ao, Romualdo, Santiago, Escudero, Guzman, Gonzales, Apostol, Del Mar, Honasan II, Cayetano Ocampo, Casino, Castelo, Escudero, (A.) Pablo, Hontiveros- Antonino, Tugna, Baraquel, Coquilla, Ejercito, Evardone, Fua, Teodoro, Haito, Herrera-Dy, Cruz Maza, Beltran, Gonzales, Sy-Alvarado, Ilagan, Abante, Hataman-Salliman Codilla, Daza, Alcala, Biazon, et. al

Access Sec. 6 - All Sec. 5 – Every person Sec. 5. Every Filipino toInformati information who is a Filipino citizen has a right to on pertaining to official citizen has a right to and shall, on request, acts, transactions or and shall, on request, be given access to decisions, as well as be given access to any any record under the government research record under the control of a data used as basis for control of a government agency. policy development, government agency. Government agencies regardless of their Government agencies shall make available physical form or shall make available to to the public for format the public for scrutiny, scrutiny, copying and copying and reproduction in the reproduction as manner provided by provided, all this Act, all information pertaining information to official acts, pertaining to official transactions, or acts, transactions or decisions, as well as decisions, as well as government research government research data used as a basis for data used as a basis policy development, for subject to the policy development, exceptions in Sec. 7 subject to the exceptions enumerated under

section 7 of this Act, regardless of their physical form or format in which they are contained and by whom they were made. Exceptions Sec. 8 Sec. 7 Sec. 7  Clear and  Information  The present specifically information danger of war, authorized to be directly invasion or kept secret relates to any external under national threat to the guidelines security or State as established by defense and determined by an executive its revelation the Office of order which is may cause the President directly related grave damage and/or the to national to the national Secretary of security or security or the defense and its internal and Department of revelation may external National cause grave defense of the Defense damage to the State; or 2)  Related to internal and The foreign external defense information affairs, when of the State requested its revelation  Information pertains to the would unduly pertaining to foreign affairs weaken the foreign affairs of the negotiating that upon Republic of position of the revelation the government in would unduly Philippines, an ongoing weaken the when its bilateral or negotiating revelation multilateral position of the may weaken negotiation or government or the seriously seriously negotiating jeopardize the jeopardize the position of the diplomatic diplomatic government in relations of relations of the an ongoing the Philippines with bilateral or Philippines one of more multilateral with one or states. The negotiation or more states executive order seriously with which it shall specify the jeopardize the

intends to reasonable diplomatic keep friendly period after relations of relations, which the the except that information Philippines such shall be with any state; information automatically Provided, must always declassified or further, that be accessible subject to the executive to either mandatory order shall House of declassification specify the Congress review reasonable  Internal and  Information period after external consisting of which the defense and records of information law minutes, advice shall be enforcement, given and automatically when the opinions declassified or revelation expressed subject to thereof would during decision- mandatory render a making or declassificatio legitimate policy n review, and military formulation that any operation which is reasonable ineffective, invoked doubt as to unduly privileged by classification compromise the Chief and the Executive for declassificatio prevention, reason of n shall be detection or sensitivity of settled in suppression of subject matter favor of the a criminal  Information right to activity, or pertaining to information; endanger the internal and/or life or external  The physical defense, law information safety of enforcement, consist of confidential and border records of or protected control which minutes, sources or upon disclosure records of witnesses, law would advice given enforcement compromise or records of and military military or law opinions personnel or enforcement expressed their operation and during immediate detection and decision- families. suppression of making or

Information criminal policy relating to the activity, deprive formulation, details of the a person of a invoked by administration right to a fair the Chief , budget and trial, lead to the Executive to expenditure, disclosure of be privileged and the identity of a by reason of management confidential the sensitivity of the source, disclose of the subject defenseandla techniques for matter or by w law reason of the enforcement enforcement impairment of agencies shall investigations the Chief always he or prosecutions, Executive's accessible to and endanger deliberative the public the life or safety process that  The of any would result information individual from the pertains to  Information disclosure trade, pertaining to thereof. Once industrial, personal policy has financial or information of a been commercial natural person formulated secrets of a other than the and decisions third party requesting made, minutes natural or party, which and research juridical upon disclosure data may be person, would be a made obtained in violation of available for confidence by personal disclosure a government privacy unless they agency  Trade secrets were made in whenever the and commercial executive revelation or financial session. thereof would information seriously obtained from a  The prejudice the person other information interests of than the requested the third party requesting pertains to in trade, party, or internal industrial, obtained in and/or financial or confidence or external commercial covered by defense, law competition, privileged enforcement, unless the communication and border third party has  Classified control, when

consented to information by the disclosure the disclosure Rules of Court thereof may of the compromise information Sec. 10 – Exemption or intervere  The from Compliance – The with any information is government agency legitimate privileged shall be excused from military or from complying with a law production in subsequent identical or enforcement legal substantially similar operation, proceedings request from the same interfere with by law or by requesting party where prevention, the Rules of it has previously detection, or Court, unless complied with a request suppression of the person for information unless a criminal entitled to the reasonable interval has activity, lead privilege has lapsed between to the waived it; compliance with the disclosure of  The previous request and the identity of information is the making of the a confidential exempted by current request. source, statutes of disclose Congress, in legitimate addition to techniques those and provided in procedures of this section law  The enforcement, information is endanger the obtained by life or any physical committee of safety of any either House individual of Congress in executive  The session; and information  Drafts of requested decisions of consists of any executive, drafts of administrative orders, , judicial or resolutions, quasi-judicial decisions, body in the memoranda or exercise of audit reports their by any adjudicatory executive,

72 functions are administrative being , regulatory, requested. constitutional, judicial or quasi-judicial body in the exercise of their regulatory, audit and adjudicatory function.

 The information requested is obtained by either House of Congress, or any committee thereof, in executive session.

 The information requested pertains to the personal information of a natural person other than the requesting party, and its disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of his or her personal privacy, unless it forms part of

a public record, or the person is or was an official of a government agency and the information relates to his or her public function or the person has consented, in writing, to the disclosure of the information;

 The information requested pertains to trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a natural or juridical person other than the requesting party, obtained in confidence or covered by privileged communicatio n, and/or filed with a government agency, whenever the revelation

thereof would prejudice the interests of such natural or juridical person in trade, industrial, financial or commercial competition

 The information is classified as privileged communicatio ns in legal proceedings by law or by the Rules of Court.

 The information requested is exempted from disclosure by law or by the Constitution, in addition to those provided in this section

 The information has already been made accessible as provided in Section 13 of this Act.

Notable Sec. 13 – Mandatory Sec. 8 – Mandatory Sec. 8 – Mandatory

Provisions Disclosure of Disclosure of Disclosure of Transactions Information a) the Information a) the Involving Public annual Statement of annual Statement of Interest -Subject to Assets, Liabilities, and Assets, Liabilities, Sections 7 and 8 of Net Worth (SALN) of and Net Worth this Act, all the President, the Vice- (SALN) of the government agencies President, the Members President, the Vice- shall post on their of the Cabinet, the President, the bulletin boards and Members of the Senate Members of the upload on their and the House of Cabinet, the websites all the steps, Representatives, Members of the negotiations and key Justices of the Supreme Senate and the House government positions Court, Commissioners of Representatives, pertaining to definite of the Constitutional Justices of the propositions Commissions and other Supreme Court, of the government, as constitutional offices, Commissioners of the well as the contents and the officers of the Constitutional of the contract, Armed Forces with the Commissions and agreement or treaty rank of general or the other constitutional in the following equivalent flag rank offices, and the transactions officers of the Armed involving public b) All agencies of all Forces with the rank interest. branches of of general or the government shall equivalent flag rank SEC. 14. Promotion publish on their of Openness in websites a register of b) All agencies of all Government. -(a) the Freedom of branches of Duty to Publish Information Manual in government shall Information - full, Rules of Procedure upload on their Government agencies and rules of general websites, which shall shall regularly applicability, and be updated monthly, publish and public interest a register of the disseminate, at documents or records. following public no cost to the public The register shall interest transactions, and in an accessible contain a brief documents or records form, by print and description of the including the annual through their transaction involved, budget of government wehsite, timely, true, including the nature agencies, itemized accurate and updated and object of monthly collections key information transaction, the parties and disbursement, and amounts involved, summaries of  Improving the key steps income, components Capability - undertaken towards its of the IRA utilization, Every conclusion, and the annual procurement government relevant dates provided plans and agency shall that contracts involving procurement lists,

76 ensure the an amount of at least and items to bid, provision of Fifty Million Pesos among others (see 7- adequate (P50,000,000.00) shall 18) training for its be published in full of officials to the site of the  The register improve concerned government shall contain a awareness of agency or the Official brief the right to Gazette Online. description of information the and the Sec. 9 – Promotion of transaction provisions of Openness in involved, this Act, and Government – including the to keep Government agencies nature and updated of shall regularly publish, object of best practices print, and disseminate transaction, in relation to at no cost true, the parties and information accurate, and updated amounts disclosure, key information involved, the records key steps maintenance Sec. 11 – Additional undertaken and archiving. Protection of Privacy – towards its the Act affords full conclusion, protection of the right and the to privacy of relevant dates individuals provided that contracts Sec. 20 – Keeping of involving an Records – Government amount of at agencies shall create least Fifty and maintain accurate Million Pesos and reasonably (P50,000,000. complete 00) shall be documentation of their published in organization, policies, full of the site transactions, decisions, of the resolutions, enactions, concerned et. al. Agencies shall government coordinate with the agency or the National Archives of Official the Philipipnes to keep Gazette and or transfer records. Online.

Sec. 21 – Publication  Each in the Official Gazette government – documents uploaded agency shall on the website of the regularly

Official Gazette will be publish and considered official disseminate a provided there is a People’s timestamp Ownership of Government Information Manual in full, a description of its mandate, structure, its frontline services, SALNs of public officials, work programs, development plans, investment plans, projects, important rules and regulations, etc.

Sec. 9. Protection of Privacy - While providing for access to information in public records, this Act also affords full protection of the right to privacy of individuals.

Sec. 10. People's Ownership of Government Information Manual. - (A) For the effective implementation of this Act, all government agencies shall prepare a

People's Ownership of Government Information Manual

Sec. 16. Keeping of Records. - (A) Government agencies shall create and/or maintain in appropriate formats, accurate and reasonably complete documentation or records of their organization, policies, transactions, decisions, resolutions, enactments, actions, procedures, operations, activities, communications and documents received or filed with them and the data generated or collected…

Sec. 17. Publication in the Official Gazette. For purposes of mandatory disclosure as provided in Section 8 of this Act, online publication in the Official Gazette website shall be considered official publication provided there shall be a timestamp in the said document.

Sec. 23. Appropriations. - The

amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be charged against the agencies' current budget Liabilities Sec. 15 - Criminal Sec. 12 - Sec. 18. Liability - The Administrative Liability Administrative penalty of – gross neglect of duty Liability. - The acts imprisonment of not shall constitute grounds enumerated in this less than six (6) for administrative and Section shall be months but not more disciplinary sanction tantamount to grave than one (1) year, against any public administrative with the accessory official or employee offenses and shall penalty of suspension who wilfully and constitute grounds for from office for the knowingly refuses to administrative and same duration, shall promptly forward a disciplinary sanction be imposed upon: request, fails to act on against any public (a) Any public the request within the official or employee officer or employee given time periods, who wilfully and receiving the request claims an exception knowingly commits under Section 9of this under Sec. 7 when the the following: (a) Act who shall claim is manifestly Refusal to promptly knowingly refuse or, devoid of factual or forward the request because of gross legal basis, refuses to under Section of this negligence, fail to comply with the Act to the public promptly forward the decision of his officer within the request to the public immediate supervisor same office or agency officer responsible ordering the release of responsible for for officially acting information, approves officially acting on on the request when policies, rules, and the request when such is the direct regulations contrary to such is the direct cause of the failure to the provisions of this cause of the failure to disclose the Act disclose the information within information within the periods required Sec. 13 – Criminal the periods required by this Act... Liability – any public by this Act; (b) official who falsely Failure to act on the Sec. 16. Strict denies or conceals the request within the CivilLiability. - In existence of periods required by case a request for information mandated this Act; (c) Refusal information is denied for disclosure under to comply with the and subsequently this Act shall be liable decision of his reversed by final and for the crime of immediate executory judgment removal, concealment, supervisor, the of the Ombudsman or or destruction of Ombudsman, or of

80 the courts, the documents as defined any court ordering government agency under Article 226 of the release of shall be liable to pay the Revised Penal Code information; the (d) Approval of requester damages in policies, rules and the amount of one regulations clearly thousand pesos (P contrary to the 1,000.00) per day provisions of this from the date of Act, and which notice of denial until policies, rules and the date of regulations are the compliance with the direct cause of the request, which denial of a request for amount shall be information. automatically appropriated. The SEC. 19. Criminal public officer or Liability. - (A) Any employee: and the public official or private individual employee who falsely responsible for the denies or conceals the denial shall be existence of solitarily liable with information which is the government a proper subject for agency, unless he can disclosure under this prove that such denial Act shall be liable for was made without the crime of removal, fault or negligence, or concealment or was not done destruction of arbitrarily or in documents as defined manifest bad faith. under Article 226 of The liability under the Revised Penal this section shall be Code. (B) Any public without prejudice to official or employee actual, moral and who destroys, or exemplary damages causes to be that may be destroyed, adjudicated under the information and/or law. documents being requested under this Act, for the purpose of frustrating the requesting party's access thereto, shall be liable for the crime of removal. concealment or

destruction of documents as defined under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code. (C) Any individual who knowingly directed, induced or caused the commission of the foregoing acts shall be liable as principal by inducement in the prosecution of public officials or employees under this section. (D) The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee responsible for officially acting on the request, who shall claim an exception under Section 7 of this Act, or under the Constitution, when such claim is manifestly devoid of factual basis.

SEC. 21. Mere Denial in Good Faith Not a Ground for Liability. - A mere denial in good faith of a request made pursuant to the provisions of this Act shall not constitute grounds for administrative, civil or criminal liability Action Killed Killed Approved on third taken reading

Table 9 is a summary of comments at the changes made by Malacanang in the

Tanada bill (HB 53), as released by the Right to Know, Right Now! (R2KRN) Coalition.

Malacanang released its first version of the FOI bill in May 3, 2011. R2KRN stated that a lot of the provisions inserted by Malacanag have been lifted from the United States version of the FOIA, and are ambiguous when applied in the Philippine setting. Further, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines said the Palace had even “expanded” the list of exemptions from the FOI. Malacanang released another version of its bill in

February 3, 2012. After several consultations, the coalition and authors of the bill were able to strike a compromise, and have come up with HB 6766.

Table 9. Comparison of Tanada bill and first Malacanang version

(Right to Know, Right Now Coalition, 2011)

Tanada Bill (HB 53) Malacanang Issued Bill (2011) Improvements (basis)  The assistance to persons who are illiterate or with disability  The introduction of a tracking system for requests  The expansion of the information for mandatory disclosure Exception: National The Tañada version The Malacañang version security attempted to limit national inserted “national security” security to national in Section 7 (a) defense, in view of the general tendency of governments to give national security an

overbroad scope and meaning Exception: Deliberative  Section 6 limited the process privilege availability of the right to information only from when a decision on government policy had been taken. It contradicted the constitutional guarantee.  The new exception under Section 7 (d) on inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda was copied from exception 5 of the US FOIA, which is stated in opaque language  The new exception under Section 7 (e) on records of minutes and advice and opinion given during decision-making or policy formulation was a more detailed version of (d). It was also copied from the US FOIA. Burden of proof With burden of proof Deleted burden of proof in Section 5 Public interest override With public interest Deleted public interest provision provision in Section 9 Notice of denial Identification needed for  Deleted the proper attribution of the act requirement of the specification of the name, rank, title or position of the person making the denial of a request in Section 11  Centralized notification to an

“Information Committee” Information Commission In terms of legislative Removed recourse to the history, early versions had Ombudsman and replaced it provisions for with the Information an independent information Commission, which wsn’t commission. However, independent, rather it was earlier Congresses resisted attached to the Office of the the creation of any new President bodies in view of its fiscal impact. Various alternative existing institutions were explored, and the best fit was the Office of the Ombudsman given its broad Constitutional powers and mandate. Sanctions for violation of Removed the criminal right to information liability for the acts identified under Section 18 of Tanada’s Bill

VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Summary

In the objectives of this study, the researchers aimed (1) to trace the history of the

FOI bill since it was first introduced in 1992, (2) to find out the various experiences that the FOI bill went through under various administrations, and (3) to identify the factors that have led to the non-passage of the FOI bill.

With regard to the first and second objectives, the researchers found that the history of the FOI bill started with the filing of Sen. Alberto G. Romulo of the “Freedom of Access to Information Act” in 1992. A number of similar bills have succeeded it in the following congresses, which have not been given due attention by the media and the lawmakers themselves. By the end of the 11th Congress, various civil society groups decided to engage Congress in discussions on the bill, which resulted to the first FOI bill drafted from a consultation effort. These civil society groups later formed the Access to

Information Network (ATIN) before expanding and being formally known as the Right to

Know, Right Now! (R2KRN) coalition. The coalition made sure the bill took off in the

12th and 13th Congresses, but the time was not ripe for the bill to go beyond second reading. Things took an interesting turn during the 14th Congress, under the term of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who has been infamously involved in the

“Hello Garci” election scuffle. It was in this congress when a bill filed in the lower house got its farthest, to its third and final reading, before it was killed due to several delays.

The bill was off to a promising start in the 15th Congress, with newly elected president

Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III pledging support for its passage. However, this support proved to be lukewarm as the 15th Congress unfolded. Though the Senate swiftly passed

86 their version of the bill, the House of Representatives was conflicted between passing a

“genuine” version of the bill, delaying tactics, and arguments regarding Right of Reply.

With all these and other interruptions coming into account, the Freedom of Information bill has perished in the 15th Congress, to be resurrected yet again.

As for the third objective, four factors have been identified namely, (1) presidential support, (2) public clamour, (3) debates on the Right of Reply and finally (4) the legislative body itself. The bill’s advocates understand that there is still a lot of room for growth in the House, especially since many of the sitting representatives come from political dynasties. According to Batario, because the congress is controlled by the elite, it’s still difficult for them to share power in the form of an FOI law, especially if they have been in power for centuries.

The coalition may have reached out to different sectors already but there may still be a need for the “unaffiliated” to demand from their legislators the passage of the FOI.

With support from the interviews, the writers deemed, however, that the most salient hindrance to the passage of an FOI bill is the distinct and aggressive resistance in the House of Representatives. The lower house has been the bill’s greatest antagonist as its members fear the consequences of a legislated call to transparency. This is most evident in the way the bill has been destroyed in the 14th Congress; in the way it has been deterred in the 15th, and in the House’s reflex to protect itself through the insertion of a provision on Right of Reply.

Lingao added that what the FOI needs is a congress that is proactive and progressive. “You're talking about a chamber of fence sitters who'd rather err on the side

87 of conservatism especially when it comes to divulging information about them,” he said.

“The best proof of that is the SALN. The senators have all released their SALNS, the executive has released their SALN, congress, you could not get them to release their

SALNs. Not as a group, and not individually.”

Also, it can be therefore concluded that in the country’s political system, there is an apparent over-reliance on the whims of the President. In an ideal democracy, the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government should function efficiently, coequally, and independently, which cannot be held true for this government, as the lower house clearly made apparent. The House has always been waiting for “a clear voice from Olympus,” for the bill to be certified urgent, for the president to “crack the whip,” in order to act swiftly on the passage of the FOI bill.

B. Recommendations

The researchers have a two-fold recommendation for the improvement of this study and the furtherance of the bill: one addressed to their fellow students, and the other to the civil society organizations engaged in the campaign for FOI.

1. For students

For those who plan to delve further into this topic, the researchers recommend conducting more interviews with the original bill’s proponents to ascertain details such as their motivations for filing the bill, and the differences in the bill’s reception in the

88 political atmosphere during the time it was filed. Despite the researchers’ persistence, the bill’s oldest proponents have not been reached due to constraints in time and resources.

Another method would be to look into more newspapers to see how the media has given attention to the bill, given that the bill’s institution establishes ease in the way they acquire information. An investigative study can also be made on what the opponents of the bill in the House might have in common, such as having unexplained wealth or belonging to political dynasties, and why these commonalities give them reason to actively oppose efforts in transparency.

The researchers also advise having a more unified effort in pushing for the bill within their campus, since the UP Community, like the rest of the citizenry, would benefit from an FOI bill. A number of student groups have already expressed their concern for the passage of the FOI, holding dialogues and fora to engage students.

However, only politically-inclined organizations have been active in the bill’s campaign.

For the bill to be understood and fought for by more students in campus, and for the drafting of a bill that would cater to the needs of more people, a solid, cohesive, consultative body with a more diverse student composition must be formed. The researchers also believe that as Centers of Excellence in Journalism and Communication

Research, the UP College of Mass Communication must take initiative in pushing for a bill that affirms their watchdog role in society. As a premiere institution that champions transparency and accountability, the college must participate in consultations, lobbying efforts, and awareness campaigns on FOI.

2. For FOI proponents and civil society supporters

As for the proponents and supporters of the bill, both in and outside the government, there is a need to improve the tactics in campaigning for the passage of the

FOI. The researchers agree with their interviewees that the concept of FOI must be easily understood by the “common people,” those who are outside legislation, the academe, and non-government organizations. Ordinary citizens must understand the importance and the need of the FOI bill in their lives in order that they, too, can make it their own campaign.

With more citizens joining the campaign for its passage, then there are greater chances of it being passed.

In their guide for civil society organizations, the United Nations suggested several mechanisms to strengthen citizen participation, such as (1) Networking, or the forming of

‘policy watch groups’ for tracking legal and legislative developments, which has been actualized through the R2KRN coalition; (2) Awareness Generation, or the promotion of equity “by helping vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, including people living in poverty and other low-income groups in using the Right to Information to realize their rightful entitlements;” (3) Capacity building, or the development of program procedure and implementation; and (4) the Effective use of the media – in bringing to light substantiated reports on service delivery issues, and in perpetuating the message of the need for an FOI in a democracy through the available and most effective media. (The

Right to Information Act: A Guide for Civil Society Organizations, 2005) Because of the ubiquity of radio and television, and the growing number of people on the Internet, the researchers suggest a more stringent advertising campaign on television, radio, and social media.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Banisar, D. (2006). Freedominfo.org global survey: Freedom of information and access to government records around the world. Freedom of information. Retrieved February 1, 2013 from http://www.freedominfo.org/regions/europe/sweden/

Coronel, S. (Ed.). (2001). The right to know: Access to information in Southeast Asia. Quezon city: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

Congress of the Philippines.

Daruwala, M. & Nayak, V. (Eds.). (2007). Our rights, our information: Empowering people to demand rights through knowledge. New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.

De Jesus, M. (1996). Media and society: News media in a democracy. In De Jesus, M. & Teodoro, L. (Eds.), The Filipino press and media, democracy and development. Quezon city: University of the Philippines Press.

Dyer, A., Hayden, M., Lanctot, D. (n.d.). The Shannon and Weaver model defined. Information Theory Presentation. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://www.uri.edu/artsci/lsc/Faculty/Carson/508/03Website/Hayden/ShanWeav.ht ml communicationtheory.org (2011). Shannon and Weaver model of communication. Communication theory. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://communicationtheory.org/shannon-and-weaver-model-of-communication/

Feliciano, G. (1968). The press and local government. In De Jesus, M. & Teodoro, L. (Eds.), The Filipino press and media, democracy and development. Quezon city: University of the Philippines Press.

Introduction, J. M. (n.d.). The World's First Freedom of Information Act (Sweden/Finland 1766). Scribd. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/5885744/The-Worlds-First-Freedom-of-Information- Act-SwedenFinland-1766

Iyer, V. (2001). Freedom of information: An Asian survey. Singapore: Asian Media Information and Communication Centre.

La Viña, T. (n.d.). 8 lessons from the Corona impeachment trial. Rappler. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/6351-8-lessons- from-the-corona-impeachment-trial

91 legislationonline.org (n.d.). Sweden access to information and data protection. Legislation Online. Retrieved February 1, 2013 from http://legislationline.org/topics/country/1/topic/3

Mangahas, M. (2010). Secrets of Nograles could be exposed by FOI. GMA news online. Retrieved March 23, 2013 from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/192814/news/nation/secrets-of-nograles- house-could-be-exposed-by-foi

Manifesto of Bantay FOI! Sulong FOI! Network | Institute for Freedom of Information. (n.d.). Institute for Freedom of Information. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from http://ifoi.ph/manifesto-of-bantay-foi-sulong-foi-network/

McQuail, D. (2002). McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory. London: Sage.

Mendel, T., & Unesco, N. D. (2008). Introduction. Freedom of information: a comparative legal survey (2nd ed., p. 4). New Delhi: UNESCO.

ODS HOME PAGE. (n.d.). ODS HOME PAGE. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from http://daccess-dds- ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/033/10/IMG/NR003310.pdf?OpenEleme nt

Panela, R. (2010). 14th congress kills FOI bill. In PJR Reports. Makati: Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.

Petaja, U. (2009). What is the value of freedom of speech? In Kierulf, A. & Ronning, H. (Eds.), Freedom of speech abridged?: Cultural, legal and philosophical challenges. Goteborg:

Nordicom.Peterson, T. (1956). Social responsibility theory of the press. In Siebert, S., Four theories of the press. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Opaque LGUs the norm in NCR. Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from http://pcij.org/stories/opaque-lgus-the-norm-in-ncr/

Raymundo, K. R. (2012, December 11). Foi: Foiled again. Retrieved from http://www.cmfr-phil.org/2012/12/11/foi-foiled-again/

Right to Know, Right Now Coalition (2012, 5 September). Kill Bill take 2? FOI death by inaction looms in Congress. National Union of Journalists of the Philippines. Retrieved March 23, 2013 from http://www.nujp.org/2012/09/kill-bill-take-2-foi- death-by-inaction-looms-in-congress/

Roberts, Alasdair S., A Great and Revolutionary Law? The First Four Years of India’s Right to Information Act (January 9, 2010). Public Administration Review; Suffolk University Law School Research Paper No. 10-02.

Roy, A. (2012, April 10). How the uk can learn from india's right to information act. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/10/india-freedom-of- information

Senate of the Philippines.

Teodoro, L. (n.d.). The press as the fourth estate.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (n.d.). Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

University College London (n.d.). Sweden: International focus. UCL Constitution Unit: School of Public Policy. Retrieved February 1, 2013 from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/countries/sweden

Vleugels, R. (2011).Overview of all FOI laws. FRINGE SPECIAL, 0. Retrieved September 19, 2012, from http://www.bigwobber.nl/wp- content/uploads/2011/10/Fringe-Special-Overview-FOIA-oct-2011.pdf

CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES FOURTEENTH CONGRESS First Regular Session }

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H. No. 3732

BY REPRESENTATIVES ANGARA, DEL MAR, VILLANUEVA, CRUZ-GONZALES, ABAYA, TALIÑO-MENDOZA, TAÑADA, DE GUZMAN, GONZALES (A.), OCAMPO, CASIÑO, PABLO, HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, COQUILLA, FUA, TEODORO, CHATTO, MAZA, BELTRAN, ILAGAN, ABANTE, CODILLA, DAZA, ALCALA, BIAZON, UMALI (A.), CUA (J.), UY (R.A.), DEL ROSARIO, PINGOY, LAGMAN, OLAÑO, CAJAYON, JOSON, SOON-RUIZ, GARAY, SANDOVAL, MANDANAS, HATAMAN, ABLAN, AGBAYANI, AGGABAO, AGYAO, ALFELOR, ALMARIO, ALVAREZ (A.), AMATONG, ANGPING, APOSTOL, AQUINO, ARAGO, ARENAS, ARNAIZ, ARROYO (D.), ARROYO (I.), ASILO, BAGATSING, BALINDONG, BARZAGA, BINAY, BIRON, BONDOC, BONOAN-DAVID, BRIONES, BULUT, CABILAO, CAGAS, CASTELO DAZA, CASTRO, CAYETANO, CELESTE, CERILLES, CHIPECO, CHONG, CLARETE, CLIMACO, COSCOLLUELA, CRISOLOGO, CUA (G.), CUENCO, DATUMANONG, DEFENSOR (A.), DEFENSOR (M.), DIAZ, DILANGALEN, DIMAPORO, DOMOGAN, DUAVIT, DUMARPA, DURANO, DY, ENVERGA, ESCUDERO, ESTRELLA (C.), FABIAN, FERNANDEZ, FERRER, FUENTEBELLA, GARCIA (A.), GARCIA (P.), GARCIA (V.), GARIN, GATCHALIAN, GATLABAYAN, GO, GOLEZ, GONZALES (N.), GONZALEZ, GULLAS, GUNIGUNDO, HOFER, JAAFAR, JALA, JAVIER, JIKIRI, KHO, LACSON, LAGDAMEO, LAPUS, LIM, LOPEZ, MADRONA, MAGSAYSAY, MAMBA, MANGUDADATU, MARAÑON, MARCOS, MATUGAS, MERCADO, MITRA, NAVA, NICOLAS, NOEL, NOGRALES, ONG, ORTEGA, PADILLA, PANCHO, PANCRUDO, PICHAY, PIÑOL, PLAZA, PRIETO-TEODORO, PUNO, RAMIRO, REMULLA, REYES (V.), ROBES, RODRIGUEZ, RODRIGUEZ-ZALDARRIAGA, ROMAN, ROMARATE, ROMUALDEZ, ROMULO, SALVACION, SANTIAGO (J.), SANTIAGO (N.), SILVERIO, SINGSON (E.), SINGSON (R.), SUAREZ, SUSANO, SY- 2

LIMKAICHONG, TEVES, TIENG, TUPAS, UNGAB, UY (E.), UY (R.S.), VARGAS, VELARDE, VILLAFUERTE, VILLAROSA, VINZONS-CHATO, VIOLAGO, YAP, YU, ZAMORA (M.), ZAMORA (R.), ZIALCITA AND ZUBIRI, PER COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 331

AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN GUARANTEED UNDER SECTION TWENTY-EIGHT, ARTICLE II AND SECTION SEVEN, ARTICLE III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Freedom of Information Act of 2008”.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State recognizes the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, and adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest, subject to limitations provided by this Act. This right is indispensable to the exercise of the right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political and economic decision- making.

SEC. 3. Coverage. – This Act shall cover all government agencies as defined in Section 4 of this Act.

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: (a) “Information” shall mean any knowledge, record, document, paper, report, letters, contract, minutes and transcripts of official meetings, maps, books, photographs, data, research material, film, sound and video recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data processing records, computer stored 3

data, or any other like or similar data or material recorded, stored or archived in whatever form or format, which are made, received or kept in or under the control and custody of any government agency pursuant to law, executive order, rules and regulations, ordinance or in connection with the performance or transaction of official business by any government agency. (b) “Government agency” shall include the executive, legislative and judicial branches as well as the constitutional bodies of the Republic of the Philippines including, but not limited to, the national government and all its agencies, departments, bureaus, offices and instrumentalities, constitutional commissions and constitutionally mandated bodies, local governments and all their agencies, regulatory agencies, chartered institutions, government-owned or -controlled corporations, government financial institutions, state universities and colleges, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police, all offices in the Congress of the Philippines including the offices of Senators and Representatives, the Supreme Court and all lower courts established by law. (c) “Official records” shall refer to information produced or received by the public officer or employee, or by a government agency in an official capacity or pursuant to a public function or duty, and is not meant to be a stage or status of the information. 4

(d) “Public records” shall include information required by law to be entered, kept and made publicly available by a government agency such as, but not limited to, the: (1) Office of the Civil Registry; (2) National Statistics Office; (3) Register of Deeds; (4) Land Transportation Office; (5) Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board; (6) Securities and Exchange Commission; (7) Intellectual Property Office; or (8) Business Permits and Licenses Office and Assessor’s Office of the various local government units.

SEC. 5. Presumption. – There shall be a legal presumption in favor of access to information. Accordingly, government agencies shall have the burden of proof of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the information requested should not be disclosed.

SEC. 6. Access to Information. – Government agencies shall make available to the public for scrutiny, copying and reproduction in the manner provided by this Act, all information pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as government research data used as basis for policy development, regardless of their physical form or format in which they are contained and by whom they were made.

SEC. 7. Qualifications. – Even if the information falls under the exceptions set forth in the succeeding section, access to information shall not be denied if: (a) The information may be reasonably severed from the body of the information which would be subject to the exceptions; or 5

(b) The public interest in the disclosure outweighs the harm to the interest sought to be protected by the exceptions.

SEC. 8. Exceptions. – Subject to the qualifications set forth in Section 7: Provided, That the information is specifically designated and described, and the facts and reasons for preserving the confidentiality are precisely and specifically recited, and: Provided, further, That such information shall be available to either House of Congress at all times, access to information may be denied when: (a) The revelation of the information will create a clear and present danger of war, invasion or any external threat to the State as determined by the Office of the President and/or the Secretary of the Department of National Defense: Provided, That the Supreme Court may, upon complaint by any citizen, inquire into the sufficiency of the factual basis for such determination; (b) The information pertains to the foreign affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, when its revelation would unduly weaken the negotiating position of the government in an ongoing bilateral or multilateral negotiation or seriously jeopardize the diplomatic relations of the Philippines with one or more states with which it intends to keep friendly relations, except that such information must always be accessible to either House of Congress; (c) The information pertains to internal and external defense and law enforcement, when the revelation thereof would render a legitimate military operation ineffective, unduly compromise the prevention, detection or suppression of a criminal activity, or endanger the life or physical safety of 6

confidential or protected sources or witnesses, law enforcement and military personnel or their immediate families. Information relating to the details of the administration, budget and expenditure, and management of the defense and law enforcement agencies shall always be accessible to the public; (d) The information pertains to the personal information of a third party natural person, unless it forms part of a public record, or the third party is or was an official of a government agency and the information relates to his or her public function; (e) The information pertains to trade, industrial, financial or commercial secrets of a third party natural or juridical person, obtained in confidence by a government agency whenever the revelation thereof would seriously prejudice the interests of the third party in trade, industrial, financial or commercial competition, unless the third party has consented to the disclosure of the information; (f) The information is privileged from production in legal proceedings by law or by the Rules of Court, unless the person entitled to the privilege has waived it; (g) The information is exempted by statutes of Congress, in addition to those provided in this section; (h) The information is obtained by any committee of either House of Congress in executive session; and (i) Drafts of decisions of any executive, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body in the exercise of their adjudicatory functions are being requested. 7

SEC. 9. Procedure of Access. – (a) Any person who wishes to obtain information shall submit a request to the government agency concerned, as much as practicable in writing or through electronic means, reasonably describing the information required, the reason for the request of the information and the means by which the government agency shall communicate such information to the requesting party. (b) The request shall be stamped by the government agency, indicating the date and time of receipt and the name, rank, title and position of the receiving public officer or employee with the corresponding signature, and a copy thereof furnished to the requesting party. In case the request is submitted by electronic means, the government agency shall provide for an equivalent means by which the requirements of this paragraph shall be met. (c) The request may indicate the following preferred means of communication: (1) A true copy of the information in permanent or other form; (2) An opportunity to inspect the information, using equipment normally available to the government agency when necessary; (3) An opportunity to copy the information using personal equipment; (4) A written transcript of the information contained in a sound or visual form; (5) A transcript of the content of an information, in print, sound or visual form, where such transcript is capable of being produced using equipment normally available to the government agency; or (6) A transcript of the information from shorthand or codified form. (d) A government agency may communicate information in a form other than the preferred means whenever such preferred means would unreasonably interfere with the effective operation of the agency, or be detrimental to the preservation of the record. 8

(e) The government agency shall comply with such request within ten (10) calendar days from the receipt thereof. (f) The time limits prescribed in this section may be extended during unusual circumstances where, in the production of the requested information, there is a need: (1) To search for and collect the requested information from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; (2) To search for, collect and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct information which are demanded in a single request; (3) For consultation, which shall be conducted in all practicable speed, with another government agency or among two (2) or more components of the government agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request; and (4) To consider fortuitous events or other events due to force majeure or other analogous cases. (g) The government agency shall, in writing or through electronic means, notify the person making the request of the extension, setting forth the reasons for such extension and the date when the information shall be made available: Provided, That no such notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension of more than fifteen (15) calendar days.

SEC. 10. Access Fees. – Government agencies may charge a reasonable fee to reimburse the cost of searching, reproduction, copying or transcription and the communication of the information requested.

SEC. 11. Notice of Denial. – If the government agency decides to deny the request, in whole or in part, it shall, within ten (10) calendar days from the receipt of the request, notify the person making the request of such denial in 9 writing or through electronic means. The notice shall clearly indicate the name, rank, title or position of the person making the denial, and the grounds for the denial. In case the denial is by reason of a claimed exception, the denial shall also state clearly the legitimate aim or interest sought to be protected in the confidentiality, and the facts and circumstances invoked showing the substantial harm to, or frustration of, the legitimate aim or interest that will result in the disclosure of the information. Failure to notify the person making the request of the denial, or of the extension, shall be deemed a denial of the request for access to information.

SEC. 12. Remedies in Cases of Denial. – (a) In the executive and legislative branches and the constitutional bodies – (1) Every denial of any request for access to information may be appealed to the person or office next higher in authority, following the procedure provided in the guidelines as required by Section 17 of this Act: Provided, That the appeal must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days from the notice of denial and must be decided within fifteen (15) calendar days from filing. Failure of the government agency to decide within the aforestated period shall constitute a denial of the appeal; and (2) Instead of appealing or after the denial of the appeal, the person denied access to information may, within fifteen (15) calendar days from the original denial or denial of the appeal, file a verified complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, praying that the government agency concerned be directed to immediately afford access to the information being requested. Such complaint shall be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman within sixty (60) calendar days 10

from filing or earlier, when time is of the essence, taking into account such factors as the nature of the information requested, context of the request, public interest and danger that the information requested will become moot. (b) In the Judicial Branch – The Supreme Court shall promulgate the remedies that would govern offices under its jurisdiction. (c) The remedies under this section are without prejudice to any other administrative, civil or criminal action covering the same act. (d) The remedies available under this Act shall be exempt from the rules on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and the application of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9285, otherwise known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. (e) The Office of the Ombudsman shall promulgate its rules of procedure to effect the purposes of this Act. (f) Unless restrained or enjoined, the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to review in accordance with the Rules of Court. (g) In case the requester has limited or no financial capacity, the Public Attorney’s Office shall be mandated to provide legal assistance to the requester in availing of the remedies provided under this Act.

SEC. 13. Mandatory Disclosure of Transactions Involving Public Interest. – Subject to Sections 7 and 8 of this Act, all government agencies shall post on their bulletin boards and upload on their websites all the steps, negotiations and key government positions pertaining to definite propositions 11 of the government, as well as the contents of the contract, agreement or treaty in the following transactions involving public interest: (a) Compromise agreements entered into by a government agency with any person or entity involving any waiver or its rights or claims; (b) Private sector participation agreements or contracts in infrastructure and development projects under Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by Republic Act No. 7718, authorizing the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of infrastructure projects; (c) Procurement contracts entered into by a government agency; (d) Construction or concession agreements or contracts entered into by a government agency with any domestic or foreign person or entity; (e) Loans, grants, development assistance, technical assistance and programs entered into by a government agency with official bilateral or multilateral agencies, as well as with private aid agencies or institutions; (f) Loans from domestic and foreign financial institutions; (g) Guarantees given by any government agency to government- owned or -controlled corporations and to private corporations, persons or entities; (h) Public funding extended to any private entity; (i) Bilateral or multilateral agreements and treaties in defense, trade, economic partnership, investments, cooperation and similar binding commitments; or 12

(j) Licenses, permits or agreements given by any government agency to any person or entity for the extraction and/or utilization of natural resources.

SEC. 14. Promotion of Openness in Government. – (a) Duty to Publish Information – Government agencies shall regularly publish and disseminate, at no cost to the public and in an accessible form, by print and through their website, timely, true, accurate and updated key information including, but not limited to: (1) A description of its structure, powers, functions, duties and decision-making processes; (2) A description of the frontline services it delivers and the procedure and length of time by which they may be availed of; (3) Work programs, development plans, investment plans, projects, performance targets and accomplishments, and budgets, revenue allotments and expenditures; (4) Important rules and regulations, orders or decisions; (5) Current and important database and statistics that it generates; (6) Bidding processes and requirements; (7) Mechanisms or procedures by which the public may participate in or otherwise influence the formulation of policy or the exercise of its powers; and (8) A guide on accessing information containing adequate information about its record-keeping system, the types of information it holds and/or publishes, the procedure for obtaining access by the public to such information, the person or office responsible for receiving the request and routing it to the person or office with the duty to act on the request, the standard forms and procedure for request, and the schedule of access fees. 13

(b) Keeping of Records – Government agencies shall maintain and preserve their records in a manner that facilitates easy identification, retrieval and communication to the public. They shall establish Management Information Systems (MIS) to strengthen their capability to store, manage and retrieve records, and to facilitate access to public records. The following shall not be destroyed: (1) Records pertaining to loans obtained or guaranteed by the government; (2) Records of government contracts; (3) The declaration under oath of the assets, liabilities and networth of public officers and employees, as required by law; (4) Records of official investigations on graft and corrupt practices of public officers; and (5) Other records where there is a significant public interest in their preservation or where there is likely to be such interest in the future. (c) Accessibility of Language and Form – Every government agency shall endeavor to translate key information into major Filipino languages and present them in popular form and means. (d) Improving Capability – Every government agency shall ensure the provision of adequate training for its officials to improve awareness of the right to information and the provisions of this Act, and to keep updated of best practices in relation to information disclosure, records maintenance and archiving.

SEC. 15. Criminal Liability. – The penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) months but not more than one (1) year, with the accessory penalty of suspension from office for the same duration, shall be imposed upon: 14

(a) Any public officer or employee receiving the request under Section 9 of this Act who shall knowingly refuse or, because of gross negligence, fail to promptly forward the request to the public officer responsible for officially acting on the request when such is the direct cause of the failure to disclose the information within the periods required by this Act; (b) Any public officer or employee responsible for officially acting on the request, who shall: (1) Knowingly refuse or, because of gross negligence, fail to act on the request within the periods required by this Act; (2) Knowingly deny the existence of existing information; (3) Deliberately destroy information being requested for the purpose of frustrating the requester’s access thereto; (4) Claim an exception under Section 8 of this Act, when the claim is manifestly devoid of factual basis; or (5) Refuse to comply with the decision of his immediate supervisor, the Ombudsman or the court ordering the release of information that is not restrained or enjoined by a court; (c) The head of office of the government agency directly and principally responsible for the negotiation and perfection of any of the transactions enumerated in Section 13 of this Act, who shall knowingly refuse or, because of negligence, fails to direct the mandatory posting or uploading of such transaction. The same penalty shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who, despite a directive from the head of office, shall knowingly refuse or, because of 15

negligence, fails to post or upload any of the transactions enumerated in Section 14 of this Act; (d) Any public officer or employee who shall destroy, or cause to destroy, records of information covered by Section 14(b) of this Act; (e) Any public officer who intentionally formulates policies, rules and regulations manifestly contrary to the provisions of this Act, and which policies, rules and regulations are the direct cause of the denial of a request for information; or (f) Any public or private individual who knowingly induced or caused the commission of the foregoing acts under this section.

SEC. 16. Strict Civil Liability. – In case a request for information is denied and subsequently reversed by final and executory judgment of the Ombudsman or the courts, the government agency shall be liable to pay the requester damages in the amount of One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) per day from the date of notice of denial until the date of compliance with the request, which amount shall be automatically appropriated. The public officer or employee and the private individual responsible for the denial shall be solidarily liable with the government agency, unless he can prove that such denial was made without fault or negligence, or was not done arbitrarily or in manifest bad faith. The liability under this section shall be without prejudice to actual, moral and exemplary damages that may be adjudicated under the law.

SEC. 17. Guidelines. – (a) For the full implementation of this Act within the executive branch of the government, the Office of the Press Secretary, particularly the Philippine Information Agency, shall, through a consultative process, promulgate within six (6) months from the passage of this Act, the general guidelines to which the government agencies controlled, 16 supervised or situated under the Office of the President, and shall adhere in the establishment of their specific guidelines for access to information, which shall include: (1) The location of the head, regional, provincial or field offices, or other established places where the public can obtain information or submit requests therefor; (2) The types of information it holds and/or publishes; (3) The person or office responsible for receiving the request and for routing it to the person or office with the duty to act on the request, and the standard forms and procedures for the request; (4) The procedure for the administrative appeal of any denial for access to information; and (5) The schedule of fees which shall be limited to the reasonable and standard charges for document search and reproduction, and the recovery of the direct costs thereof. Each of the abovementioned government agency, office and instrumentality shall submit to the Philippine Information Agency a copy of its guidelines for review to ensure the standardization of the procedure and the uniformity of fees, without prejudice to the right of the different agencies, offices and instrumentalities to adopt appropriate procedures for their unique functions and responsibilities. (b) The legislative and judicial branches and the constitutional bodies shall promulgate their own guidelines that would govern offices under their respective jurisdictions. The Secretary of the Senate, the House of Representatives’ Secretary General, the head of the Supreme Court Public Information Office and the public information officers of the constitutional 17 bodies shall be responsible in furnishing copies of their respective guidelines to the Philippine Information Agency. (c) The Office of the Ombudsman shall likewise promulgate its special rules of procedure for the immediate disposition of complaints filed pursuant to Section 12 of this Act. In no case shall the absence of the aforementioned guidelines be a reason for the denial of any request for information made in accordance with this Act.

SEC. 18. Act Not a Bar to Claim of Right to Information Under the Constitution. – No provision of this Act shall be interpreted as a bar to any claim of denial of the right to information under Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution.

SEC. 19. Separability Clause. – If, for any reason, any section or provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, no other section or provision shall be affected.

SEC. 20. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, issuances or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, including Memorandum Circular No. 78 dated 14 August 1964 (Promulgating Rules Governing Security of Classified Matter in Government Offices), as amended, and Section 3, Rule IV of the Rules Implementing Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), are deemed repealed.

SEC. 21. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. Approved,

·i " ~'n,'; : .>, ,/, ':):~H,~,(I:, 11t'!;lfQ FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE ) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) Second Regular Session ) 'I! 1111Y:n n ':i :J;: SENATE

S. No. 3208

(In substitution of Senate Bill Nos. 11,25,126,149,158,162,1254,1440,1773,2086. 2189,2283,2354, and 3183)

Prepared by the Committees on Public Information and Mass Media, Civil Service and Government Reorganization and Finance with Senators Trillanes, Revilla, Jr., Osmena III, Pangilinan, Guingona III, Committee on Rules, Villar, Legarda, Santiago, Escudero. Honasan II, Cayetano (A.) and Drilon as authors thereof.

AN ACT 1 FORTIFYING THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP OVER INFORMATION HELD 2 BY THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT 3 4 5 Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines III 6 Congress assembled: 7 8 9 SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "People's 10 Ownership of Government Information (POGI) Act of 2012." 1 1 12 SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - Pursuant to the First Principle declared in Our 13 Constitution that Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authonty 14 emanates from them, the right of the people to effective and reasonable participation at 15 all levels of social, political and economic decision making, the right of the people to 16 information on matters of public concern, and the policy of full public disclosure of all 17 government transactions involving public interest, it is hereby declared that All 18 Government Information is Owned by the People and that public access to all 19 government information, as a general rule, serves the public interest and exceptional 20 instances restricting access thereto, as provided herein, shall only be allowed also by 21 reason of public interest. 22 23 SEC. 3. Coverage - This Act shall cover all branches, departments, and 24 instrumentalities of government, including all local government units, collectively 25 referred to as government agencies defined under Section 4 of this Act, . 26 27 SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act: 1 (A) "Information" shall mean any record, document, paper, report, letters, contract, 2 minutes and transcripts of official meetings, maps, books, photographs, data, research 3 material, film, sound and video recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data. 4 computer stored data, or any other like or similar data or material recorded, stored or 5 archived in whatever form or format, which are made, received or kept in or under the 6 control and custody of any government agency pursuant to law, executive order, rules 7 and regulations, ordinance or in connection with the performance or transaction of 8 official business by any government agency. 9 10 (S) "Government agency/agencies" shall include the executive, legislative and judicial 11 branches as well as constitutional bodies of the Republic of the Philippines including, 12 but not limited to, the national government and all its agencies, departments, bureaus. 13 offices and instrumentalities, constitutional commissions and constitutionally mandated 9 14 bodies, local governments and all their agencies, regulatory agencies, chartered 15 institutions, government-owned or controlled corporations, including wholly-owned or 16 controlled subsidiaries, government financial institutions, state universities and colleges, 17 the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police, all offices in the 18 Congress of the Philippines including the offices of Senators and Representatives, the 19 Supreme Court and all lower courts established by law. 20 21 (C) "Official record/records" shall refer to information produced or received by a public 22 officer or employee, or by a government agency in an official capacity or pursuant to a 23 public function or duty, regardless of whether the information is in the draft, final, or any 24 other stage or status. 25 26 (0) "Public record/records" shall include information required by law, executive orders, 27 rules, or regulations to be entered, kept and made publicly available by a government 28 agency. 29 30 SEC. 5. Access to Information. - Every Filipino citizen has a right to and shall, on 31 request, be given access to any record under the control of a government agency 32 Government agencies shall make available to the public for scrutiny, copying and 33 reproduction in the manner provided by this Act, all information pertaining to official 34 acts, transactions or deciSions, as well as government research data used as a basis for 35 policy development, subject to the exceptions enumerated under section 7 of this Act, 36 regardless of their physical form or format in which they are contained and by whom 37 they were made. SEC. 6. Presumption. - There shall be a legal presumption in favor of access to 2 information. No request for information shall be denied unless it clearly falls under the 3 exceptions provided under this Act. 4 5 SEC. 7. Exceptions. - Access to information shall be granted unless: 6 7 (A) The information is specifically authorized to be kept secret under guidelines 8 established by an executive order, and in fact properly classified pursuant thereto: 9 Provided, That 1) The information directly relates to national security or defense and Its 10 revelation may cause grave damage to the national security or internal and external 11 defense of the State; or 2) The information requested pertains to the foreign affairs of 12 the Republic of the Philippines, when its revelation may weaken the negotiating position 13 of the government in an ongoing bilateral or multilateral negoti<;ltion or seriously.! 14 jeopardize the diplomatic relations of the Philippines with any state; Provided, further, 15 That the executive order shall specify the reasonable period after which the information 16 shall be automatically declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review, and 17 that any reasonable doubt as to classification and declassification shall be settled In 18 favor of the right to information; 19 20 (6) The information consist of records of minutes, records of advice given or records of 21 opinions expressed during decision-making or policy formulation, invoked by the Chief 22 Executive to be privileged by reason of the sensitivity of the subject matter or by reason 23 of the impairment of the Chief Executive's deliberative process that would result from 24 the disclosure thereof. Once policy has been formulated and decisions made, minutes 25 and research data may be made available for disclosure unless they were made in 26 executive session. 27 28 (C) The information requested pertains to internal and/or external defense, law 29 enforcement, and border control, when the disclosure thereof may: 30 31 (i) compromise or interfere with any legitimate military or law enforcement 32 operation, or 33 34 (ii) compromise or interfere with the legitimate prevention, detection or 35 suppression of criminal activity, or the legitimate implementation of immigration controls 36 and border security, or 37 38 (iii) lead to the disclosure of the identity of a confidential source, including a government, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished 2 information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled " 3 by a law enforcement authority in the course of an investigation or by an agency 4 conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by 5 a confidential source, or 6 7 (iv) disclose legitimate techniques and procedures for law enforcement 8 investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose legitimate guidelines for law 9 enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be 10 expected to risk circumvention of the law, or II 12 (v) endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. 13 14 15 (D) The information requested consists of drafts of orders, resolutions, decisions, 16 memoranda or audit reports by any executive, administrative, regulatory, constitutional. 17 judicial or quasi-judicial body in the exercise of their regulatory, audit and adjudicatory 18 function. 19 20 (E) The information requested is obtained by either House of Congress, or any 21 committee thereof, in executive session. 22 23 (F) The information requested pertains to the personal information of a natural person 24 other than the requesting party, and its disclosure would constitute an unwarranted 25 invasion of his or her personal privacy, unless it forms part of a public record, or the 26 person is or was an official of a government agency and the information relates to his or 27 her public function or the person has consented, in writing, to the disclosure of the 28 information; 29 30 (G) The information requested pertains to trade secrets and commercial or financial 31 information obtained from a natural or juridical person other than the requesting party, 32 obtained in confidence or covered by privileged communication, and/or filed with a 33 government agency, whenever the revelation thereof would prejudice the interests of 34 such natural or juridical person in trade, industrial, financial or commercial competition 35 36 (H) The information is classified as privileged communications in legal proceedings by 37 law or by the Rules of Court. (I) The information requested is exempted from disclosure by law or by the Constitution, 2 in addition to those provided in this section, 3 4 (J) The information has already been made accessible as provided in Section 13 of this 5 Act. 6 7 For letters (c) to 0) of this section, the determination whether any of these grounds shall 8 apply shall be the responsibility of the head of office of the government agency In 9 custody or control of the information, or any responsible central or field officerls duly 10 designated by him: Provided, That: 11 (1) The exceptions are strictly construed; 12 (2) The exceptions are not used to cover-up a crime, wrong-doing, graft, or corruption: 13 (3) The President, the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and 14 the Constitutional Commissions may waive an exception with respect to information in 15 the custody of offices under their respective supervision or control, when they deem that 16 there is an overriding public interest in disclosure; 17 18 (4) The exceptions do not constitute authority to withhold information from Congress nor 19 authority for the executive branch of a local government unit to withhold information 20 from the legislative body of such local government unit; 21 (5) Whenever the information requested is part of a record, whose other parts are 22 covered by an exception, but may be reasonably severed from a record, the responding 23 official shall either sever the information not covered by the exception and 24 communicated it to the requester, or he shall edit the exempt information and render It 25 suitable for public disclosure and release the record to the requester with a specific 26 identification of the parts which were edited; and 27 (6) Even if the information requested falls under the exceptions set forth in this Section, 28 access to information shall not be denied if public interest in the disclosure of the 29 information outweighs public interest in securing its confidentiality, 30 31 SEC. 8. Mandatory Disclosure of Information. - Government agencies are mandated 32 to regularly disclose the following information in the duration and manner provided 33 hereunder: 34 35 (A) In fulfillment of Article XI, Section 17 of the Constitution, the following national 36 officials shall disclose to the public, through their official website, their Statement of 37 Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALN) on an annual basis: 38 (1) the President; 1 (2) the Vice- President; 2 (3) the Members of the Cabinet; 3 (4) the Members of Congress; 4 (5) the Justices of Supreme Court; 5 (6) the Members of Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional 6 offices; and 7 (7) officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank. 8 9 (B) All agencies of all branches of government shall upload on their websites. 10 which shall be updated monthly, a register of the following public interest transactions, 11 documents or records, including: 12 13 (1) Annual Budget of Government Agencies; 14 (2) Itemized Monthly Collections and Disbursement; 15 (3) Summary of Income and Expenditures; 16 (4) Component of the IRA Utilization; 17 (5) Annual Procurement Plan and Procurement List; 18 (6) Items to Bid; 19 20 (7) Bid Results on Civil Works, and Goods and Services; 21 (8) Abstract of Bids as Calculated; 22 (9) Procurement contracts entered into by a government agency; 23 (10) Construction or concession agreements or contracts entered into by a 24 government agency with any domestic or foreign person or entity; 25 (11) Private sector participation agreements or contracts in infrastructure 26 and development projects under Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by 27 Republic Act No. 7718, authorizing the financing, construction, operation 28 and maintenance of infrastructure projects; 29 (12) Public funding extended to any private entity; 30 (13) Bilateral or multilateral agreements and treaties in trade, economic 31 partnership, investments, cooperation and similar binding commitments; ,! 32 (14) Licenses, permits or agreements granted by any government agency 33 to any person or entity for the extraction and/or utilization of natural 34 resources and a list of the grantees; 35 (15) Guarantees given by any government agency to government-owned 36 or -controlled corporations and to private corporations, persons or entities; 37 (16) Loans from domestic and foreign financial institutions; 38 (17) Loans, grants, development assistance, technical assistance, and programs entered into by a government agency with official bilateral or 2 multilateral agencies, as well as with private aid agencies or institutions. 3 and 4 (18) Compromise agreements entered into by a government agency with 5 any person or entity. 6 7 The register shall contain a brief description of the transaction involved, including, but 8 not limited to: the nature and object of the transaction, the parties and amounts 9 involved, the key steps undertaken towards its conclusion, and the relevant dates 10 provided that contracts and agreements involving an amount of at least fifty millioll 11 pesos (P50, 000,000.00) shall be uploaded in full on the website of the concerned 12 government agency or the Official Gazette Online. A covered record shall be enrolled In 13 the register not later than 30 working days from its perfection or issuance. 14 15 (C) Each government agency shall regularly publish, print and disseminate at no 16 cost to the public and in an accessible form, in conjunction with Republic Act 9485, or 17 the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, and through their website, timely, true, accurate alld 18 updated key information including, but not limited to: 19 20 (1) A People's Ownership of Government Information Manual in full; 21 (2) A description of its mandate, structure, powers, functions, duties and 22 decision-making processes; 23 (3) A description of the frontline services it delivers and the procedure and length 24 of time by which they may be availed of; 25 (4) The names of its key officials, their powers, functions and responsibilities, and 26 their profiles and curriculum vitae; 27 (5) The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the public officers of the 28 government agency; 29 (6) Work programs, development plans, investment plans, projects, performance 30 targets and accomplishments, and budgets, revenue allotments and 31 expenditures; 32 (7) Important rules and regulations, orders or decisions: Provided, That they be 33 published within fifteen (15) calendar days from promulgation; 34 (8) Rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which 35 forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all 36 papers, reports, or examinations; 37 (9) Substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and 38 statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated

7 and adopted by the agency, including subsequent amendments; 2 (10) Current and important database and statistics that it generates; 3 (11) Bidding processes and requirements; and 4 (12) Mechanisms or procedures by which the public may participate in or 5 otherwise influence the formulation of policy or the exercise of its powers. 6 7 All government agencies shall over time endeavor and build the capacity and practice to 8 upload in full all other contracts, agreements, or treaties covered under this section. 9 specially those that are of the highest public interest by reason of the amounts involved ! 10 and the impact of the transaction to the public. All government agencies must ensure 11 that they have a compliant website within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act. 12 13 Should an agency lack the capacity to comply with the website uploading requirement of 14 this section, the agency shall initiate a capacity-building program, coordinate with 15 another appropriate agency, or use an alternative mechanism, to facilitate substantive 16 compliance not later than three (3) years from the effectivity of this Act. The National 17 Computer Center shall monitor all government agency websites and render the 18 appropriate support for their development and full compliance with the requirements oi 19 this Act. 20 21 For purposes of improving capability, every government agency shall ensure the 22 provision of adequate training for its officials to improve awareness of the people's 23 ownership of government information and the provisions of this Act, and to keep 24 updated as to best practices in relation to information disclosure, records maintenance 25 and archiving. 26 27 28 In order to develop accessibility of language and form, every government agency shall

29 endeavor to translate key information into major Filipino languages and present them In 30 popular form and means. 31 32 SEC. 9. Protection of Privacy - While providing for access to information in publiC 33 records, this Act also affords full protection of the right to privacy of individuals, as 34 follows: 35 ! 36 (a) A government agency must ensure that personal information in its custody or under 37 its control is disclosed only as permitted under this Act; 38 (b) A government agency must protect personal information in its custody or under Its control by making reasonable security arrangements against such risks as unauthorized 2 access, collection, use, disclosure, or disposal; 3 4 (c) An employee, officer or director of a government agency who has access, whether 5 authorized or unauthorized, to personal information in the custody of the agency, must 6 not disclose that information except as authorized under this Act. 7 8 SEC. 10. People's Ownership of Government Information Manual. - (A) For the 9 effective implementation of this Act, all government agencies shall prepare a People's 10 Ownership of Government Information Manual, setting forth the following: II 12 (1) The location and contact information of the head, regional, provincial and field 13 offices, and other established places where the public can obtain government 14 information or submit requests; 15 (2) The types of information it generates, produces, holds and/or publishes; 16 (3) A description of its record-keeping system; 17 (4) The person or office responsible for receiving requests for information; 18 (5) The procedure for the filing of requests personally, by mail, or through the 19 identified electronic means; 20 (6) The standard forms for the submission of request and for the proper 21 acknowledgment of the request; 22 (7) The process for the disposition of the request, including the routing of the 23 request to the person or office with the duty to act on the request, the decision- 24 making process, and the grant or denial of access and its implementation; 25 (8) The procedure for the administrative appeal of any denial for access to 26 information; 27 (9) The schedule of fees; 28 (10) The process and procedure for the mandatory disclosure of information 29 under Section 8 of this Act: Provided, That should the agency lack the capacity 30 to fully comply therewith, a brief description of its plan to facilitate compliance 31 within three (3) years from the approval of this Act; and 32 (11) Such other information, taking into consideration the unique characteristics 33 of an agency, that will help facilitate the effective implementation of this Act. 34 35 (b) The foregoing information shall also be posted in its website and bulletin boards, and 36 shall be regularly updated; 37 38 (c) In no case shall the absence of the aforementioned Manual be a reason for the denial of any request for information made in accordance with this Act. 2 3 (d) The heads of each of the departments and agencies may designate liaison units or 4 Committees who shall coordinate with the other units of the agency in implementing this 5 Act. The composition, functions and duties of these liaison units or Committees shall be 6 included in the People's Ownership of Government Information Manual. 7 8 SEC. 11. Procedure of Access. - (A) Any person who wishes to obtain information 9 shall submit, free of charge, a request to the government agency concerned personally, 10 by mail, or through electronic means. A person who is unable, because of illiteracy or II due to being a person with disability, to make a written request for information may 12 make an oral request, and the public official who receives the oral request shall reduce 13 it to writing, and include his name and position within the government agency, and give ~ 14 a copy thereof to the person who made the request. The request shall state the name 15 and preferred contact information of the requesting party, and reasonably describe the 16 information required, the reason for the request of the information and the preferred 17 means by which the government agency shall communicate such information to the 18 requesting party: Provided, That the stated reason shall not be used as a ground to

19 deny the request or to refuse the acceptance of the request, unless such reason IS 20 contrary to law. If the request is submitted personally, the requesting party shall show 21 his current identification card issued by any government agency, or government or 22 private employer or school, or a community tax certificate. If the request is submitted by 23 mail or through electronic means, the requesting party may submit a photostatic or 24 electronically scanned copy of the identification, or other convenient means as 25 determined by the agency. 26 27 (8) The public official receiving the request shall provide reasonable assistance, free of 28 charge, to enable all requesters and particularly those with special needs, to comply 29 with the request requirements under this section. 30 31 (C) The request shall be stamped by the government agency, indicating the date and 32 time of receipt and the name, rank, title and position of the receiving public officer or 33 employee with the corresponding Signature, and a copy thereof furnished to the 34 requesting party. In case the request is submitted by electronic means, the government 35 agency shall provide for an equivalent means by which the requirements of thiS 36 paragraph shall be met. Each government agency shall establish a system to trace the 37 status of all requests for information received by it. 38 (D) The request may indicate the requesting party's preferred mode and means of !

\11 1 receiving the information requested, provided that the mode and means are reasonable. Ii 2 taking into consideration equipment normally available to the concerned government ',; 3 agency. 4 5 (E) A government agency may communicate the information requested in a form other 6 than the preferred means whenever the agency has no capability in communicating the 7 information in the preferred format, or such preferred means would unreasonably 8 interfere with the effective operation of the agency or be detrimental to the preservation 9 of the record. 10 11 (F) The government agency shall comply with such request as soon as practicable, and 12 in any case within fifteen (15) working days from the receipt thereof. The period may be 13 extended whenever the information requested requires a search of the government 14 agency's field or satellite offices, examination of voluminous records, the occurrence of 15 fortuitous events or other analogous cases. 16 17 (G) The government agency shall, in writing or through electronic means, notify the 18 person making the request of the extension, setting forth the reasons for such extension 19 and the date when the information shall be made available, which in no case shall result 20 in an extension of more than twenty (20) working days. 21 22 (H) Once a decision is made to grant the request, the person making the request shall 23 be notified of such and shall pay the required access and processing fees. 24 25 If the information is not held by the government agency to which the request was made, 26 it shall notify the requester that it does not hold the information, and indicate to the 27 requester which agency holds the record, if known. Whenever practicable, the agency 28 receiving the request may also cause the transfer of the request to the appropnate 29 agency that holds the information: Provided, That the period to comply with the request 30 under this section Shall begin to run only upon the receipt of the agency to which the 31 request is transferred. 32 33 SEC. 12. Access and Processing Fees. - Government agencies may charge a 34 reasonable fee to reimburse the actual cost of reproduction, copying or transcription and 35 the communication of the information requested. An agency may waive the fees 36 whenever it is satisfied that the requester is an indigent, or that the cost of reproduction 37 is negligible, or that it is pursuant to a program for proactive disclosure.

11 SEC. 13. Exemption From Compliance. - The government agency is excused from 2 complying with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from the same 3 requesting party where it has previously complied with a request for information unless 4 a reasonable interval has lapsed between compliance with the previous request and the 5 making of the current request: Provided, That the government agency complies with 6 Section 14 of this Act. 7 8 SEC. 14. Notice of Denial. - (A) If the government agency decides to deny the request. 9 in whole or in part, it shall, as soon as practicable, and in any case within fifteen (15) 10 working days from the receipt of the request, notify the person making the request of 11 such denial in writing or through electronic means. The notice shall clearly set forth the 12 ground or grounds for denial and the circumstances on which the denial is based, and 13 indicate available rights of reconsideration or appeal. Failure to notify the person making 14 the request of the denial, or of the extension, shall be deemed a denial of the request 15 for access to information. 16 17 SEC. 15. Remedies in Cases of Denial. - (A) In all government agencies other 18 the judicial branch: 19 20 (1) Every denial of a request for access to information may be contested by a Request 21 for Administrative Reconsideration to the same responsible official who originally denied 22 the request or by an Administrative appeal to the Head of Agency, following the 23 procedure mentioned in Section 10 (a) (8) and Section 14 of this Act: Provided, That 24 the appeal must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days from the receipt of the notice 25 of denial and must be decided within fifteen (15) calendar days from filing. Failure to 26 resolve the appeal within the aforementioned period shall constitute a denial of the 27 appeal: Provided, Further, That every Notice of Denial shall include check-box options 28 to be checked or marked by the requester for the Immediate Administrative 29 Reconsideration or Appeal to the head of the agency. If the requester, after indicating 30 his desired remedy, submits his Request for Administrative Reconsideration or Appeal 31 with the government official communicating the Notice of Denial to the requester, that 32 government official shall be responsible for immediately coursing the Request for 33 Administrative Reconsideration or Appeal to the appropriate official or head of the 34 agency: Provided, Finally, That the requester may, in addition to and together with h< 35 Request for Reconsideration or Appeal, submit further arguments to strengthen 36 request; 37

38 (2) Instead of appealing or after the denial of the appeal, the person denied access I. information may file a verified Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, praying tila

2 the government agency concerned be directed to immediately afford access to \i'.

3 information being requested, Such Complaint shall be resolved by the Office 11

4 Ombudsman within sixty (60) calendar days from filing, or earlier when time is at li 5 essence, taking into account such factors as the nature of the information requesle"

6 context of the request, public interest and danger that the information requested w;, 7 become moot The Office of the Ombudsman shall promulgate its special rules (. 8 procedure for the immediate disposition of Complaints filed pursuant to this Sectlor

9 Unless restrained or enjoined, the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman shall •. H. 10 immediately executory, without prejudice to review in accordance with the Rules: II Court; 12 13 (3) Instead of filing a Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, whenever a request 14 for information is denied originally or on administrative appeal, the requesting party lnily I S file a verified petition for mandamus in the proper court, alleging the facts with certaln("

16 and praying that judgment be rendered ordering the respondent, immediately or Ii 17 some other time to be specified by the court, to disclose the information and to pay !t,. 18 damages sustained by the requesting party by reason of the denial. The procedure 19 such petition shall be summary in nature; 20 21 (4) In resolving a Complaint or Petition brought under the preceding paragraphs (2) am:

22 (3), the Ombudsman or the court is empowered to receive the information subject of i 23 claim of exception under Section 7 herein and examine them in camera to determln. 24 the sufficiency of the factual and legal basis of such claim, when such sufficiency canll(,' 2S be reasonably determined through evidence and circumstances apart from tiiL 26 information, 27

28 (B) In the Judicial Branch - The Judiciary shall be governed by such remedies 21: 29 promulgated by the Supreme Court, 30 31 (C) The remedies under this section are without prejudice to any other administrative, ,! 32 civil or criminal action covering the same act 33 34 (D) The remedies available under this Act shall be exempt from the rules on non- 3S exhaustion of administrative remedies and the application of the provisions of Republic 36 Act No, 9285, otherwise known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 37 38 (E) In case the requesting party has limited or no financial capacity, the Public Attorney's Office shall be mandated to provide legal assistance to the requeslci 2 availing of the rernedies provided under this Act. 3 4 SEC. 16. Keeping of Records. - (A) Government agencies shall create and/or 5 maintain in appropriate formats, accurate and reasonably complete documentation or 6 records of their organization, policies, transactions, decisions, resolutions, enactments. 7 actions, procedures, operations, activities, communications and documents received or 8 filed with them and the data generated or collected. These shall include working files 9 such as drafts or notes, whenever these have been circulated within the agency for 10 official purpose such as for discussion, comment or approval or when these contain 11 unique information that can substantially contribute to a proper understanding of the 12 agency organization, policies, transactions, decisions, resolutions, enactments, actions. 13 procedures, operations, and activities; 14 15 (8) Government agencies shall identify specific and classes of official records in their 16 custody or control that have continuing historical, administrative, informational, legal. 17 evidentiary, or research value for preservation by such agencies or their legitimate 18 successors, or for transfer to the National Archives of the Philippines. In addition, the 19 20 National Archives of the Philippines shall likewise identify specific and classes of official , 21 records that it shall require agencies to preserve and transfer to it. 22 23 (C) In addition to the specific and classes of official records identified for preservation 24 under letter (8) of this section, the following shall not be destroyed: 25 26 (1) Records pertaining to loans obtained or guaranteed by the government; 27 (2) Records of government contracts; 28 (3) The declaration under oath of the assets, liabilities and net worth of public 29 officers and employees, as required by law; and 30 (4) Records of official investigations pertaining to allegations of graft and 31 corruption of public officers. 32 33 (D) Government agencies shall prepare, following standards and period promulgated 34 pursuant to Republic Act No. 9470 or the National Archives of the Philippines Act of 35 2007, a records management program that includes the following: 36 37 (1) A records maintenance system for the creation, selection, classification, 38 indexing and filing of official records that facilitate the easy identification, retrieval

1-1 1 and communication of information to the public; 2 2) A records maintenance, archival and disposition schedule providing a listing of 3 records under current use, for retention by the agency, for transfer to the National 4 Archives, or for destruction: Provided, That destruction of the official records may 5 be implemented only upon approval of the National Archives of the Philippines. 6 and 7 (3) A specifications of the roles and responsibilities of agency personnel in the 8 implementation of such system and schedule. 9 ! 10 (E) In addition to its function as repository of all rules and regulations issued by 11 agencies as provided under Book VII, Chapter II of the Administrative Code of 1987, the 12 University of the Philippines Law Center shall, in coordination with the Office of the 13 President which has exclusive editorial and printing jurisdiction over the Official Gazette.

14 and with other relevant agencies, maintain a database, and publish the same in print In 15 the Official Gazette or in digital or online form, the following: 16 17 (1) All laws of the Philippines and their amendments, from the period of the 18 Philippine Commission to the present; 19 (2) All presidential issuances from November 15, 1935 to the present, including 20 but not limited, to executive orders, presidential proclamations, administrative 21 orders, memorandum circulars, general orders, and other similar issuances; 22 (3) A database of all appointments and designations made by the President of 23 the Philippines; and 24 (4) Opinions of the Secretary of Justice. 25 26 SEC. 17. Publication in the Official Gazette. For purposes of mandatory disclosure as 27 provided in section 8 of this Act, online publication in the Official Gazette website shall 28 be considered official publication provided there shall be a timestamp in the said 29 document. 30 31 For purposes of compliance with Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, 32 publication of the following in the online version of the Official Gazette, with the 33 corresponding timestamps on the document, shall be considered as official publication. 34 35 (A) All important legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the ,! 36 Congress of the Philippines; 37 (B) All executive and administrative orders and proclamations of general 38 application; ,!

(C) Decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of 2 Appeals or other courts of similar rank, as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient 3 importance to be so published; 4 (E) Such documents or classes of documents as the President shall determine 5 from time to time to have general application or which he may authorize to be published 6 7 However, other documents or classes of documents as may be required to be 8 published by law, such as petitions and/or legal notices in connection with land titles. 9 naturalization or special proceedings shall continue to be published in the print version 10 of the Official Gazette or in any newspaper of general circulation for purposes of II compliance with the publication requirement. 12 13 SEC. 18. Administrative Liability. - The acts enumerated in this Section shall be 14 tantamount to grave administrative offenses and shall constitute grounds for 15 administrative and disciplinary sanction against any public official or employee who 16 willfully and knowingly commits the following: 17 18 (a) Refusal to promptly forward the request under Section 11 of this Act to the public 19 officer within the same office or agency responsible for officially acting on the request 20 when such is the direct cause of the failure to disclose the information within the periods 21 required by this Act; 22 (b) Failure to act on the request within the periods required by this Act; 23 (c) Refusal to comply with the decision of his immediate supervisor, the Ombudsman, or 24 of any court ordering the release of information; ,! 25 (d) Approval of policies, rules and regulations clearly contrary to the provisions of this 26 Act, and which policies, rules and regulations are the direct cause of the denial of a 27 request for information. 28 29 SEC. 19. Criminal Liability. - (A) Any public official or employee who falsely denies or 30 conceals the existence of information which is a proper subject for disclosure under thiS 31 Act shall be liable for the crime of removal, concealment or destruction of documents as 32 defined under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code. 33 (8) Any public official or employee who destroys, or causes to be destroyed. 34 information and/or documents being requested under this Act, for the purpose of 35 frustrating the requesting party's access thereto, shall be liable for the crime of removal. 36 concealment or destruction of documents as defined under Article 226 of the Revised 37 Penal Code. 38 (C) Any individual who knowingly directed, induced or caused the commission of the foregoing acts shall be liable as principal by inducement in the prosecution of public 2 officials or employees under this section. 3 (D) The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee 4 responsible for officially acting on the request, who shall claim an exception under 5 Section 7 of this Act, or under the Constitution, when such claim is manifestly devoid of 6 factual basis. 7 8 SEC. 20. No abuse in the exercise of rights and in the performance of duties 9 under this Act. - Public officials and employees, in the performance of their duties 10 under this Act, as well as citizens in the exercise of their rights under this Act, shall act 11 with justice, give everyone his or her due, and observe honesty and good faith. 12 13 Public officials and employees as well as citizens shall endeavor to handle information ,! 14 kept or obtained under this Act with due care, to the end that inaccuracies and 15 distortions are avoided. 16 17 Any public official or employee, or citizen who, in the performance of duties or exercise 18 of rights under this Act, willfully or negligently causes loss, damage or injury to another. 19 in a manner that is contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy, shall 20 compensate the latter for the damage incurred. This is without prejudice to other 21 remedies available to the aggrieved party under any other law for the same acts 22 23 SEC. 21. Mere Denial in Good Faith Not a Ground for Liability. - A mere denial in 24 good faith of a request made pursuant to the provisions of this Act shall not constitute 25 grounds for administrative, civil or criminal liability. 26 27 SEC. 22. Act Not a Bar to Claim of Right to Information Under the Constitution 28 No provision of this Act shall be interpreted as a bar to any claim of denial of the right to 29 information under Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution. 30 31 SEC. 23. Appropriations. - The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of thiS 32 Act shall be charged against the agencies' current budget and shall thereafter be 33 included in the annual General Appropriations Act. 34 35 SEC. 24. Separability Clause. - If any section or part of this Act is held 36 unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions not otherwise affected shall 37 remain in full force and effect.

17 SEC. 25. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and 2 regulations, issuances or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. 3 including sections 18, 24 and 25 of Executive Order No. 292 in relation to Article 2 of 4 Republic Act No. 386, Memorandum Circular No. 78 dated 14 August 1964 5 (Promulgating Rules Governing Security of Classified Matter in Government Offices), as 6 amended, and Section 3, Rule IV of the Rules Implementing Republic Act No. 6713 7 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), are 8 deemed repealed. 9 10 SEC. 26. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication In 11 at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. 12 13 14 Approved,

Personal Interview Rep. Lorenzo Tanada III December 10, 2012

1. How does a bill get passed?

Well, a bill gets passed, first of all, the proponents of any bill will file it with the bill index, and then it is brought to the floor and read on first reading. After that, it will be referred by the committee on rules to the appropriate committee. Once it is sent to the appropriate committee, that's when the committee will hold its hearing to tackle the bill if it's a singular bill, meaning there's no other bill like it, then there's no problem. If there are multiple number of bills with the same topic, practically the same then there's a need to consolidate. So during the hearing, the chair can already call for the attendance of stakeholders whoever he thinks would be interested in the bill. And after hearing the positions of the stakeholders and the author, then he can call for a technical working group that will consolidate all the different versions. He will appoint a chairman of the technical working group and he will ask if any other members are interested in joining the technical working group plus of course the stakeholders. So everybody will go there, consolidate, draft the substitute bill, and bring it back to the mother committee and that is when the mother committee can either approve the bill immediately or take amendments to the bill if needed, or settle controversial issues. Once that is done, the committee votes on the bill, then it is sent back to the committee on rules for calendar in plenary for plenary debate interpolation. Kasama na yung amendments dun, then voting on second reading, and then voting on third reading. Then after that, it goes to the senate. Now, if the senate has a similar bill and it goes through the same process, it has its version, the house has its version, then a bicameral committee is called to reconcile the different versions of the bill.

2. Where is the FOI bill now?

Right now, it's sad to say that despite the approval last Nov. 27, it's still with the committee because the committee chair surprisingly called for another hearing on Dec 11 although we have not received the invitations but we were told in advance by the committee secretariat, the purpose of which is to approve or sign the committee report. In my opinion, this is not necessary. As a matter of fact, the practice here in the house by the different committees and I have sat as chair in my committee in my second term, is that once a bill is approved, you just pass around the bill or ask somebody to go to the different members and have them signed, so obviously, this can be considered a delay by the chair.

3. What differentiates your bill from the one in the senate?

More or less, the bill that they started with was the bill that came from the house. The advocates worked with both chambers and they used my bill as the template. Of course, during the committee, their committee can do whatever they want. And instead of FOI, they called it POGI. Outside of that, I am not yet familiar with the different provisions that may have been changed, or may still be changed when it gets to plenary, but at least what i know is that the starting point was my bill.

4. What is the importance of FOI? Why are we pushing for this bill?

Well, first of all, it's a constitutional provision - article 3a section 7, and it makes good governance, transparency, and accountability a reality. If you look at it, if you have information, we can ensure that there is good governance. We can also be sure that we can hold people accountable (as stated in?) The constitution and everything's transparent. So i believe it's an important piece of legislation and you can even say it's the essence of democracy - people's participation - because you engage the government and ask the government "what are you doing? Are you doing things correctly?"

Well, for lawmakers, they become more transparent with whatever they're doing. For example, whatever fund the government gives them for their district, they should be more transparent about it. The districts also should know, the local officials should know how funds are being used, how projects are being spent for, whether they're overpriced or not. So it's safe to say that this changes the paradigm. It empowers people. Without foi, of course we know the saying that information is power - the less info there is, the more ignorant people become. And of course, if you are in a position of power, you would like less information to come out.

You know, there's this wrong assumption that FOI’s for the media - it's not for the media - as a matter of fact, the constitutional provision does not say it's a media right - it's a citizen's right. It just so happens that the media practitioners are also citizens of the republic. But even without FOI, the media has its own sources on how to hold people accountable and make government act a certain way, so it should not only be considered only a media right. It just so happened, it's just an incidental thing - but it would also help media in getting information faster.

5. How does it encourage citizen involvement?

FOI is a neutral right. You have to do something to get the information you're asking for. For example, you're interested in a SALN, but if you're just sitting down and not going to a particular office and ask for it, you won't get it. Or if it's posted on the web, if you don't open your computer, you won't get it. So you have to exercise that right in order to benefit from it. We can pass the law but if no one wants to exercise it, it'll just be there. How do citizens benefit from it, well, if they have access to information like budget, they know what are the programs of the government. For example, if you're interested in health, both national all the way down to the local level, if you're interested in health, you can now ask and find out what particular program is there in health in one municipality or in one province. You can even go further, like is there assistance to indigent people? And if there is such assistance, you can avail of it. For example for farmers, if the Department of Agriculture has a program for distribution of hand tractors and you want to avail of such a program and you see it, they you'll be able to avail of such benefits. As part of good governance, you help the government perform its duty by getting the information you need. Of course, with regard to accountability, it's on the bill. You're able to monitor if the government is using its resources correctly or not. If not, we hold people accountable for that. That's the benefit of the bill.

6. What has been hindering the bill all this time?

The chairman of the committee on public information. His lack of interest in calling for hearings with regard to FOI. He has been calling for hearings with regard to other subject matters, but with regard to foi, he has not been calling as much as we would’ve wanted. As a matter of fact, in the whole 2011, he did not call for one hearing at all. 2010, i can tell you he called for one when he created the technical working group to consolidate the different bills and the opinions of stakeholders. I was the one tasked to head the twg because i was the one who pushed for the bill even in the previous congresses. So since i knew it in and out, he asked me. The next time he called for a hearing was already March of 2012. We were supposed to have a hearing in august, but he didn't call. In October, we should’ve had another hearing but he said there was no room. I'm sure you heard about that. Here, in Batasan there's no room? Why did I find a room? When I found a room, i offered it to him, he didn't want to use it because I "failed to coordinate with him." well, if I didn’t find a room, what is there to coordinate about?

But since i found the room, i informed him, now he doesn’t want to use the room. So the third hearing he called was Nov. 13, when of course, nothing happened there except the monologue of Congressman Antonino and his right of reply. The fourth hearing was last week when we approved it in the committee. So my feeling and the feeling of others is that if we had more hearings, all these issue, even the issue on the right of reply would’ve been settled. Now that the number of session days is limited, now this is when he wants to call for a hearing just to show he's interested in the bill...

7. How does the right of reply relate to FOI? Is there a need for it?

My opinion is we don't need it. As a matter of fact, it should not be included in with the FOI because it would violate the constitution with regard to having two subject matters in one bill. If they want to have a right of reply, it's a separate thing. As a matter of fact, there are two bills on the right of reply which even the chairman has not heard at all, so that's the problem of the chairman. Whether it's constitutional or not, there's not yet that much jurisprudence in regard to it, but if you base it maybe on a decision of the SC where it tackled the issue on political advertisement. Like an arbiter (?), the SC mentioned that it was taking of property without just compensation. So you have to pay for your advertisement. If you take that into consideration, demanding that you be given space to print your reply is also taking without just compensation. And well, more than that, i would say it's a violation of the freedom of the press with regard to editorial prerogative. With that bill on the right of reply being inserted, or even having it as a separate bill, it would act like a prior restraint because you would always feel that when i say this, they can always demand... Now, the question is, who determines whether what i said is fair? Is it the person who is injured or should it not be the court? My opinion is, it should be the court that should determine whether what was stated was fair or not. Because if that is the case, what may be fair for the journalist might not be fair for the injured. So that now would be behind the head of the journalist and it will act as a prior restraint.

8. Any thoughts on PNoy's support?

For me, i still sincerely believe that he is in favor of this. He would not have created a study group to engage myself and the advocates as early as Feb of 2011, and as a matter of fact, in jan of this year, he came out openly and said he's in favor of the FOI.

Now, people are saying why can't he crack the whip? You know, that would be the easy way out. We are three independent branches of government and we would like the house and the senate to function and fight for what it believes in. And if you look at our constitutional government, what happens is that the president, during the writing of legislation is at the end - meaning he can veto or he can sign. So why ask him to get involved now? It's enough that he has already mentioned it, for me. But people say it happens - let's try to follow what is written in the constitution.

9. Assuming that the bill dies in this congress, what would your actions be?

I'm termed out, i can't run anymore but the foi has been in congress older than I am, so I'm sure that those that have supported the bill, if they're re-elected would carry the banner of the FOI and I’ll be there to support them.

10. Can you name several supporters of the bill?

From the partylist Akbayan, Rep. Walden Bello, from LP there's Rep. Teddy Baguilat, Akbayan but now he's running in a leg. District Rep. Kaka Bag-ao, and people who are very supportive of the bill. No one will come out openly and say they are against the freedom of information. Because by saying that, they are going against our oath, that they would uphold our constitution, so you would not catch anyone. Personal Interview Atty. Nepomuceno Malaluan December 13, 2012

1. Since when have you been active in the campaign for an FOI bill?

Well, my organization, Action for Economic Reforms (AER), was launched in 1996 and part of the focus of AER ay macroeconomic and development issues but at the same time we are looking in terms of economic development, the need for institutional reforms also in governance and even at that point we felt that a freer flow of government held information was very important. It is a mechanism for fostering economic development in terms of being able to have as a policy organization an informed participation which can be had by a freer access of important information from government, whether it's for policy development or data. So that's our foundation. Immediately we saw that as far as the constitutional guarantee is concerned, even if we know the jurisprudence that it's enforceable by itself, we see in practice the major legal gaps in its administrative operation. I think by 1997, we already had a framework paper on why it is important and what are the existing gaps. But what we didn't know is that there are other groups that are also having problems in accessing information, part of that are media organizations and part of that also are anti corruption groups. And even people's organizations or support groups of people orgs helping, for example, farmers in agrarian reforms are also having problems in accessing information. One big issue, for example, in that point, because CARP was just being implemented in its first few years, isang problem halimbawa nila ay yung land conversion and that data with respect to land conversion are with the Department of Agrarian Reform, DENR and local governments, and sometimes the courts, and the support groups of farmers are having problems accessing these documents which are very important to farmers. Because sometimes they don't know, they thought they are still claimants to the land when in fact na convert na yung land.

And as I recall, we had a forum on FOI I think we were the one who organized that forum, in 99 or 2000, with other groups, and that's when we found out that there are other groups that are concerned with freedom of information. After that forum we decided to engage in the legislative process. And so what we did was to look into the drafts that were existing then and tried to come up with an agreement of what would be key provisions. And there was a long process of consultation we had until finally I think in 2001 the first bill of FOI that embodied some level of consultation with public interest organizations, and particularly we formed the Access to Information Network around that time, was filed, and our key partner then was Rep. Joel Villanueva of Sibak and Del De Guzman of Marikina. When I said that at the same time other organizations we working on it, I think PCIJ was also looking at it. PCIJ released a book looking at the state of access to information in Southeast Asia, 2001 din siya. Ako naman, I also found out that in different countries it's becoming a demand. I was invited in 2000 or 2001 in Japan by some organzinations that were pushing for FOI. It was an international forum and I think they contacted PCIJ but PCIJ pointed to me because they interviewed me also for Philippine side. So what I found out is that in Thailand in 1997 and then in Indonesia there was a movement also that was just beginning. And Japan at that time just passed its FOI. From then on the campaign went forward and basically the legislative process provided an opportunity for us based on our original draft, mainly public interest organizations ang nag develop nun, but in the legislative process we came to interact with other stakeholders which include of course various agencies of the executive department, legislators, private sector.

2. What was the Access to Information Network?

As I mentioned it was the result when we organized that forum, we realized that there are other groups that are concerned with that. And kaya originally the composition of that access to information network were the different groups that were involved like PCIJ, which is dealing with investigative reporting and having difficulty getting information for its investigative reporting, Transparency and Accountability Network is doing work on anti corruption issues and then the alternative law groups are also involved, kasama dun ang Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, KAISAHAN, I think, which is working naman with farmers' issues. And we expanded from there. So may mga legal organization. But you would see these are public interest groups working in different areas with a common experience in access to information. The practice was mixed in the sense that some agencies were open but there were certain agencies that are not very open in getting information. And we all agreed that part of the problem was the absence of a more comprehensive FOI legislation that would supplement what is guaranteed in the constitution.

3. So para po siyang alliance ng mga organization?

Yes, you can say that. Well we call ourselves an alliance, with partnership with a number of legislators, particularly in the lower house. And as I mentioned, at that time, during the legislative process when we got to interact with the different stakeholders, more and more the bill was evolving to balance the different, sometimes conflicting concerns, particularly with the executive department and their concern was with the confidentiality of certiain information. So the exceptions issue was a key point of balancing the various stakeholders' positions. So there was a natural progression from there and after 2001and the congresses thereafter, parang it's a continous evolving of the bill. So what would happen are some advances in terms of the discussion with the different stakeholders during the legislative process and then what will be refiled is already the outcome of the previous congress. We were also at that time learning the intricacies of legislative work. We were also progressing in terms of being able to deal with a formal legislative process. It's different in terms of what the law provides and how it works. You learn along the way also in terms of representation in committees. TWG we thought originally that we cannot be part of the technical working group, that we always need to be in partnership with let's say a legislator to be able to have access to some of the phases in the proceeding, when in fact we can represent ourselves in the TWG. The other thing there is that we didn't have enough capacity to engage both Houses at the same time, so we were focusing really in the lower house in the initial stages.

4. Ano naman po yung Right to Know, Right Now coalition?

Well that's part of the campaign progression. As I mentioned during those times even if we were not able to pass the bill in the earlier stages, we really were seeing issues that were coming up that required me to build on what we know, even my understanding of it from a legal perspective, let's say as a lawyer is still continuing. Plus there were certain things that were preventing us from really pushing during certain times like during the impeachment of Erap, which disrupts the whole process. But in the last congress precisely because of the learning we've had before and the fact that the consensus of the stakeholders was already evolving, particularly with the bureaucracy. Ang pinapadala kasi usually sa hearings ay hindi naman dun sa political level na cabinet secretary. Ang pinpadala nila ay yung higher-middle level bureaucracy, hindi talaga yung mga cabinet secretaries, which are the political ones. So the consensus have emerged earlier with the bureaucracy that we're attending the committee, but the politics would change kasi very political from cabinet level and they really have not been able to sift through the process. But during the time of GMA medyo mataas na yung level ng consensus with the bureaucracy, but politically, of course, hindi masyado. In fact we didn't engage the presidency at that point because most of the public interest groups were against the GMA administration. But maybe because of the experience we've had already and as I mentioned the consensus already on the bill, there's also a learning process with our champions in congress- the readiness to push it only matures at a certain point, example si Rep. Erin Tanada. He has championed it consistently but his learning process of the bill also takes time in the same way that the learning process of the public interest groups were taking. But the 14th congress I think was already the maturation of the whole process of being able to really push it in the House and eventually in the Senate despite not dealing with the executive. And we realized at that point that political pressure is very important. Aside from the fact that over the years people are getting more and more aware and it's a common issue even for business sector, for Church. And so at the time also that we're gaining ground in the legislative process, people are getting more and more interested in the advocacy and people are getting more and more aware of the importance of the passing of the FOI bill. So we saw the need of broadening the campaign, so from ATIN, and mainly the mechanism for that expasion was getting them to support statements originally. It's really a loose network in that sense. But habang may mga nagsisign sa mga statements that we have we include them in the e-group, which is the main mechanism for communication and for discussing issues, in addition to legislative lobby work and face to face meetings.

So that's how it expanded into the Right to Know, Right Now coalition. So the R2KRN coalition, in a way, is a campaign stage. We were getting very big advances, people were getting more and more interested and getting on board and learning about the issue and becoming more committed in a more involved way, but mainly through pag support nga nung mga positions and statements and discussions that happen either in the e-group or through meetings. We've had a number of mobilizations also. So doing a mix of media work, kaya nag expand din yung media components. We're doing mobilizations, in 14th congress ha, like rallies in grounds of the Senate and in the House, which brought labor organizations, etc. And then we're doing public awareness groups, and so some people who have partners in let's say Davao, different areas of the country. So it was supposed to be a campaign phase but it made ATIN superfluous because why do you need to have two levels of organizations. So in a way ATIN faded in favor of this coalition. But the 14th congress was also the realization that there is a very strong, unstated opposition with politicians.

5. How was this opposition made evident?

Well it was made evident by what they did in the lower house. And these are very influential legislators, too. Some of them I would assume are senior legislators. So we can only go by actions because there is no one that says I oppose FOI bill but the actions run contrary to that public statement. But the senate works differently. For one it's more independent of the executive. Secondly, I think they are, because they are national public officials, they're already used to public scrutiny. Because they're in the national limelight, under scrunity by the media and various groups, etc, they don't fear transparency anymore. In contrast to the house, ang dami pa dyan na hindi sanay. They're very sensitive to criticism. And many of them would really rather not be noticed in the national (scale). Ang may gusto naman dyan sa limelight ay yung mga ambitions sa higher positions but many of them, especially the dynasties, are really content in having their local groups.They're very sensitive to transparency and being put under scrutiny. And that was something that we did not realize. We also thought that public commitments would carry through and I don't know if you can look at PCIJ and research on i, yung account nila when it was killed in the 14th congress. It was killed on a quorum call on the last day but that was already the final act. They had an opportunity to ratify the bicameral conference report which is the last.

Well just for background the legislative stages the bill has to go through before it gets into law. So you have the first reading in both houses of the bills that are filed. The first reading is just the reading in plenary, uaually just title and it's referred to the proper committee and then the committee conducts the committee hearings and comes up with the consolidation of the bills that are filed into a committee report that they will vote one and then this has to happen in both houses. The committee report will be sent to plenary for debates so a period of interpellations, congressmen and senators will ask questions to the sponsors of the bill and then based on the interpellation, some will try to introduce ammendments, that's called period of ammendments and then after the ammendments it will be voted on second reading. After its vote on second reading, if it's approved, they will come up with a clean copy of the bill. It has to be circulated at least three days before it has to be voted on on its final and third reading. But what will be produced in both houses often will have some differences and they have to go into a bicameral conference for reconciliation. After which it will be sent back to both houses for final ratification. If it is ratified in both houses, then it will be transmitted by the lower house to the president for signing.And so we were in the final step when that happened. The bicameral conference was already finished in January and there were three session days left, February 1, 2, 3. It was already ready for ratification but they didn't want it put in the agenda. Those were learnings as well. You learn as you go on, even if you study the rules, it's different from how it's implemented. And then you really have to study how it works to allow you to know how to push it within that context.

Unfortunately, that learning process is not a repeatable process. You will learn it, but the time frame when you will be able to fully use your learning will come in the future or will not come at all. And what you don’t know is that there will be new things you have to deal with. But anyway, just to say that there were several opportunities, but it was only on the very last day of that session of that congress of the 14th that they put it on the table (that) it was questioned based on quorum. And then, when the roll call was made, I think they required 135 members for a quorum at that time but there was only 128 members based on the count. So we thought we lost, really, the struggle for attendance that day because we were trying to reach the members of congress to encourage them to attend the last day because there was a commitment to put it to a vote but we know that there were texts going around asking congressmen not to attend because there is this bill that’s gonna be railroaded. So when we got the roll call result of the day, we thought that, hey, the other groups that were asking congressmen not to come, who were members of congress themselves won the convincing, only to find out that night of the following day that by our count, there were at least 8 that were actually present on the floor when the roll call was made. So that’s another learning that’s not repeatable – you can only use it the next time. Once there’s a voting, you have to really check the voting results. It’s also difficult to implement that in practice because once it’s announced, they can already declare the session adjourned for of lack of quorum. A question call is very high priority in terms of order of motion – you can interrupt anything if it’s quorum. So you have to have a mechanism whereby you can verify because it can happen again. In fact, it can happen both ways – they might call a quorum when there’s not a sufficient number of people on the floor. They can also call a non-quorum even if there’s enough people. That’s where you can look at the PCIJ account. We have people stating that they were there during the roll call and we have videos also of people actually present. There was a quorum on that day.

In any case, fast forward to the 15th congress, one is we know that the composition of congress is really the same from the 14th. The changes are just changes in names but the composition, the profile, is the same. There’s nothing that really happened between the 14th and 15th congress as far as changing the profile of the members in both houses. But the factor that we thought was different was President Aquino. Pres Aquino ran on the platform of good governance, corruption, “the straight and righteous path,” last made a statement that he would support it. Plus the fact that we know that many of those that entered his cabinet were supportive of the FOI. Plus, his candidacy was supported by the people who were pushing for the bill – the business sector, anti-corruption groups. These were exactly the groups who supported the bill who also supported the candidacy of PNoy. And so it was really a big surprise for us that he didn’t mention it despite letters. We’ve sent letters to him... conjunctures where he would be addressing the country in the inaugural speech, in the first state of the nation, in the second state of the nation, in the third even. But he wasn’t mentioning it. In the first year, instead of supporting it, what he was doing was that he was expressing so many concerns until he formed a study group.

But even after the study group has finished its work, he still wouldn’t endorse the work of the study group. And when he finally endorsed it January of his year, we thought that that was it, that the bill was a priority. But it was just an endorsement. It stops there. He took a ands-off position after. That’s why we’re in a position we are in. The factor we had thought would change the outcome was not there. In fact, it slowed us in the sense that had we known that it would not be a factor, instead of engaging the study group for example, for so many months, allowing the legislative process to slow down, to be deferred, in consideration of the study group’s work. If we knew that he would not support it fully in any way, then we could have focused on the legislative side.

But in the end, in a way, the advocates were left on their own. And so we had to deal with the same resistance in the lower house. You know, the power and authority is with them. You need so many factors to be able to hold that process. And it’s difficult because as I mentioned, the fear of politicians is personal. Now, it’s different when you push a bill and there are competing interests that are lobbying, for example. You know who your enemies are. Of course, sometimes, there’s corruption involved, probably, and so it becomes a conflict of interest between the legislators and the vested interest group. But here, it’s different. They feel it’s them. It’s their political life that’s at stake. As I mentioned, it’s different for the senators, but in congress, there are many like that. They feel that it is bad for us personally. Unlike in other bills, some people are saying “don’t pass it, it’s bad for us.” But it’s not really bad for the congressmen, it’s just a matter of weighing, balancing. Like the RH, for example. It’s not an issue for them. It’s really based on the advocacy of different groups. They believe in it or not. But does it concern them personally? It concerns their constituency, it concerns the groups that are pushing it on one side, But they think “this bill is about me, it’s about opening myself to public scrutiny.”

And that’s the reason why the right of reply is a key concern, because it’s “my” right of reply that they are pushing, it’s not the right of reply of any other person. It’s my right of reply. You have to include this. If you will demand from me greater openness and greater scrutiny, you have to give me something too. You have to give me a right to reply. Only problem with that is that they wanted to reply on an area that is already traditionally our freedom, and guarantees our protection – our freedom to express, our freedom to criticize. And they think that’s the problem, when they feel its abuse. So there’s a very big problem with respect to their perception of that freedom, that criticism, for example, is abused. We can talk about areas that are injuries that are traditionally recognized as areas of speech that’s not protected, like libel. But libel to them and criticism is the same. In fact, I think they’re more concerned with criticism.

And my biggest surprise is when the president delivered his speech in KBP recently. Because this premise is also based on being injured by unprotected speech. That was the speech that traditionally is allowed not to receive any protection. In other words, it’s outside the coverage of our freedom of expression if your expression injures somebody as defined by the libel law. There’s certain kinds of expression that the law does not protect. Or your constitutional guarantee does not protect. It does not protect you if as defined by criminal law, it’s libellous. But we have to be careful there too, that we read that libel provision, because there’s a different standard between simple private expression and expression relating to areas of public interest. There is wider protection of public interest issues. If the stringency of the standards of libel is relaxed in respect to matters of public interest unless it can be proven really that it was intended with such malice that says your intent was to damage that person. But that’s not their idea. In the speech of President Aquino, the idea was of the negativistic press. You have to look at that speech where he mentioned right of reply. It’s a coverage that mistakes fact for opinion. But certainly these are areas that are precisely protected, coz the idea is even if there’s a mistake, the freedom of expression itself can correct that by itself. If it’s criticism, the freedom of expression will correct that by itself. That’s the idea. That’s why it has to be free. It’s a market of deas. Of course, they can say there’s corruption... even that, you have to be careful.

6. What future can you see for the FOI?

The future for FOI is that it won’t go away. The politicians fear it but it won’t go away because it’s a guarantee that people will demand. When it will be passed is a matter of when. It’s a matter of time. You know, they can forestall it. As I said, the learnings are not repeatable but the learnings will make you closer and closer to getting it passed. And you can see now, the issues of public concern of public concern, of public interest, are being resolved more and more. Like exceptions, ano pang marereklamo nila sa exceptions? It’s so balanced over the legislative process. What’s left now is the political resistance already, and it’s a matter of time when we will overcome that political resistance by a bigger political force. And we would be working with that. They cannot repeat all of the public interest issues. Ang issue na lang talaga ngayon ay yung sa takot nila, what t odo with the right of reply if it becomes a media issue. It’s not ripe for a decision now but it will be discussed, the bills will come, the media will stay in a hard line position against it, we will be forced to also engage in that process in the future and at some point, a middle ground may be achieved. It’s a matter of time for this measure.

7. Were there differences in the political atmosphere in the different congresses?

It’s very political, and because it’s very political, you cannot really compute it, calculate it. What you can only do within your powers is something that’s within your grasp – your ability to organize. Syempre there are limitations but there are things that are within your power and things that are obviously very political and fluid so. It’s not repeatable because you don’t know who will come. What nature, what to expect in the next president, what kind of attitude, what kind of personality, what kind of political blocs you have to deal with, how are your forces able to cope. So always, the challenge is organizing campaigns like this. And what makes it hard is that it strikes at the heart of the politicians themselves. It’s like anti-political dynasty.

8. How is the environment towards the FOI?

There were some strokes of luck. One stroke of luck there was the immediate passage in the house. There are three regular sessions, it’s the term of congress divided into three regular sessions. Before the end of the first regular session, we were able to pass it in the house, and we were able to pass t in the house and we were able to assist in the house by some stroke of luck also. Those are not repeatable. In fact, they have also learned their lesson. They cannot allow it to pass early and that’s what Evardone did, make sure that it did not pass early enough as chairman. That presents some learning for us in the 16th congress if it does not pass now. That’s what I’m saying, it’s a matter of time, really, he’ll run out of time, because this is a guarantee of citizens and citizens will continue to value it. We need to know what they’re doing. Sen. Antonio Trillanes III Personal Interview January 21, 2013

1. You filed a bill early during the 15 congress? We are the technically the principal author of the bill.

2. After the first bill that you filed, did you file a subsequent bill? No, we’re still in the 15th congress. I don’t need to.

3. Ano po yung salient provisions ng bill ninyo? It details the kind of information that should be open to the public and the procedures of how to access that information or documents. At the same time, it provided for a penal provision that details the punishments for the violators of the law, should it be enacted into law.

4. Napasa na po sa 3rd reading… after that po, what happens? We’ll have to wait for the version of the HoR. Right now it was already passed by the committee but it has yet to be sponsored on the floor. Once it gets sponsored on the floor, it will now be interpolated on by the different congressmen. And after that, should the period of interpolation be closed, they can now move to the period of amendments, committee amendments, individual amendments, then they can pass it on 2nd reading, and after three session days, they can pass it on to 3rd reading. Then we would have to reconcile the senate and the house versions, which is why we will have a bicameral conference committee meeting. Then, they will go back to both houses for the approval of the body. After that, it’s now an enrolled bill, they will submit it to the president for his signature. If the president vetoes the bill, it gets archived or it gets reversed through ¾ vote of both houses of congress. That’s the process.

5. This is the farthest foi has gone in the senate. Bakit mas madali sa Senate? That is a sign that the president is lukewarm towards the bill. Because the way we are set up, and the actual dynamics on the ground, supposed to be congress and the executive and the judiciary are all independent constitutional bodies who are supposed to check each other, but on reality, what happens on the ground is reflected on the policy of the president. If it’s not moving there, it means the president is not interested. That’s the reason why it got passed in the senate and not in the house.

In the senate, why are they interested in pushing for this? Because the prime movers for this happens to be members of the opposition, particularly the senate president, the majority leader, and even the sponsor of the bill, senator honasan. So if they get to pass this bill, they will now have the tools to get information that they may use against the seating administration. So that’s why they’re interested. And that’s now the fear of the Aquino administration, that they would provide the rope in which they would be hanged.

6. Is there enough time? Yes, if the president would back it up. Otherwise, it won’t stand a chance. Those are the realities.

7. Why is it important? My principal advocacy is anti-corruption and part of that is transparency. And this FOI bill is the best policy to promote transparency with government. It’s just consistent with my advocacies.

8. In case it doesn’t get passed, what’s the future of the bill? We can try it again in the next congress, but it may have a chance at the latter part of the 16th congress, because by then, the Aquino administration would be going out, and he may use that, leave that as a legacy which cannot be used against him because he’s on the way out. So that’s how I see this thing happening. The new policy now would be implemented during the next administration, which is definitely not Aquino because he’s only good for one term.

9. How would the bill benefit ordinary citizens? They would get to know what’s going on inside the bureaucracy. Some procurements major, or big ticket projects, they can now scrutinize it. Being voters, being citizens of the republic, they have that right now to demand certain information and make the seating administration more responsible and accountable for their actions.

Personal Interview Red Batario February 12, 2013

1. Our thesis po kasi is on the history of the FOI...

Before wala pa talagang more concerted advocacy for FOI that time. There were just a frew groups who were saying na this should be passed. In fact wala pa talaga yung coalition. In fact there was no coalition before to work for the passage of the bill. Until noong 12th congress nag coalize na yung iba't ibang organization. These are composed of media organizations, civil society groups, individuals, etc. When they got together they formed Access to Information Network (ATIN). Yan yung precursor ng Right to Know, Right Now. The Right to Know, Right Now which was formed in the 14th congress, latter part of the 13th congress and towards the 14th congress was the larger configuration of different groups which includes the ATIN. Nung nagform yung ATIN, that includes us the Center for Community Journalism and Development, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Center for Media Freedom and Responsiblity, Transparency and Accountability Network at marami pang mga civil society organizations, exactly to work for the passage of the bill. So ginagawa ng coalition is to conduct mga forums to raise public awareness about the FOI, especially in the provinces. Kasi parang nakikita natin dun yung weakness, there's not much awareness especially in the provinces. Dito sa Metro Manila medyo mataas pa yung understanding and knowledge on the FOI and what are its implications. Pero pag lumabas ka, parang mahina. So that's part of the work we did sa coalition.

But the main thrust also was to work with congress. So we worked with legislators at the senate and at the lower house to have them crack the bill. Unfortunately in the 12th congress parang hindi pa talaga masyadong hinog in terms of, uh, even the progressive ones in congress ay hindi pa nila parang priority yung FOI. So it didn't take off during the 12th congress. So we were saying, "o sige, baka sa 13th congress meron," so ganun pa rin, all these groups were still working and we even linked up with international organizations, mga public interest groups abroad to be able to drum up support for the passage of the bill. So karamihan ng ginawa din namin noon moblizations, marching on the streets, going to congress, holding pickets, holding rallies, at the same time coupled with a media campaign. So stories coming out in the media in the different TV stations, sa mga dyaryo and parang may speaker's bureau, guesting in mga radio programs and TV shows, as part of the campaign. But I think the basic difficulty that we faced is resistance really from congress. In fact in the 13th and 14th and 15th, it was the senate that was more open to the idea of passing the FOI law. But in the lower house talagang grabe yung resistance and how they dribbled the bill from one to the next, especially nitong last which was very very disappointing because during the time of Gloria Arroyo, I think it was very clear where the administration stands and where the congress stands but in this administration nilaro-laro pa eh. Okay we're for it but we will wait for congress, things like that. But then the leadership of the lower house had shown that they are not really for the FOI.

So yun yung mga challenges that we faced in the campaign to have this bill passed into law. Marami na ring naicontribute yung coalition dyan, especially nga yung RKRN na malaki na talaga siya na coalition, in fact there are almost 200 na yata na organizations that are part of the movement, who all contributed to crafting that bill. So marami na rin yang pinagdaanan, in fact when Malacanang said, itong administration ni PNoy said, we want to study it, sabi namin sige well and good and we would welcome your suggestions. In fact parang nagstep back pa kami na a few steps backward to accomodate the request ng Malacanang na ito wag masyado etc etc just to have that bill passed. But there are some non negotiables, like penalties, mga exceptions. Kasi before sa other proposed bills, parang napakalawak naman nung mga exceptions parang wala ka na ring Freedom of Information law. So we are saying that there should exceptions that are non negtionable. They also cite issues on national security but sometimes parang masyadong blanket. So we were saying na okay lang naman na pag usapan natin but at the same time pinasok naman nila yung rider ng right of reply. So medyo dun kami nataranta. Hindi naman natin ni-negotiate ito. Papasa niyo nga yan pero nakarider naman yung ROR. At the end, we dared them sige pasa niyo yan, and let's see as long as you pass the FOI. Pero hindi naman nila pinasa. Which means takot sila sa FOI talaga, not knowing the full implications of the FOI. Kasi tinitignan nila na gagamitin lang ng media, which is not true. FOI is for all citizens.

So yun yung pinagdaanan. Along the way medyo may nawawalang mga kasama, napapagod sa mga kampanya, may nadadagdag din naman na mga organizations and individuals in campaigning for the passage of the bill. If you ask me I'm optimistic that this 16th congress will pass the bill eventually. Right now, no. Tingin ko parang it might be too early to say. Although I'm not saying I'm closing all the doors and that we will stop the fight. What I'm just saying is that I'm not a mistake that we've reached that level of maturity to understand the level of democratice structures necessarily emmanate from the people. So parang hindi ganun ang understanding ng congress. Eh siguro pag napalitan yung mukha ng congress baka magbago. Pero kasi ngayon elite controlled pa rin ang congress natin. Necessarily, hindi natin ma-eexpect yan na i0share yung power. Because when you say freedom of information, access to information, that's sharing power which is very difficult who have had power for centuries in this country.

2. Bakit po sa 12th congress lang nagkaroon ng coalition?

Kasi before that meron na ring ano yan, pero what I'm saying is mas naging, sa 12th congress parang mas nag-gel yung mga groups. Before kasi parang mga individual actions yung pag campaign for the passage of the bill. But it was in the 12th, I think it was even in the 11th, na nagkaroon ng talagang mas concerted na action. Although before nagmemeet naman pero sometimes informally. Halimbawa kami with NUJP, for instance, we will have a forum on freedom of information, but hindi kasama yung ibang groups. Until later on na nagkaroon ng decision na dapat mas aggresive na rin yung pagpush ng campaign and at the same time mas marami na dapat na mga groups at alliances.

3. Ano po yung mga trends and patterns na napansin niyo sa history ng FOI in terms of positive and negative support?

Sa positive, nakita natin there's a seeming change in the thinking in the senate. Na parang mas mature yung pagtanaw nila. Although you're dealing with lesser people so it's easier that way. And if you are able to work with champions within the legislatures, especially the senate. Parang it's easier to influence the others. At that time Enrile I think was trying to shore up his image. Hindi naman siya nakialam masyado. And then when he said he's going to support it wala siyang ginawa na to block it. At the same time hindi naman siya masyadong nagsusupport but he didn't block it. So sina Cayetano and then later on si Honasan was able to move it forward. It was really in the lower house, especially in the 14th congress where we thought we would be able to wrap it up but unable to because of lack of quorum. But there were champions who were trying to move it forward. Again, sina Erin Tanada yan and before that several party list groups. But what is very telling in the campaign the passage of the bill is that in congress the politicians who are supporting it are those who belong to the smaller parties or the partylists. Very few yung galing sa mga big political parties like LP or the PDP Laban, etc etc, which tells you something. Yung mainstream pa rin ay talagang resistant to having a bill or having a law that would allow people to have access to information. Sa local level ganun din eh. If you go to the local provinces, municipalities ganun din eh. Parang takot yung mga officials na buksan yung kanyang... when in fact the constitution guarantees. Wala ka nga lang law that says okay this is what you will do.

4. What was it about the 14th congress that pushed the bill to where it got?

Well intense yung campaign. But I think napaglaruan din eh. Okay sige, we'll allow you to get this far but in the end you will not see the light of day, you will not have this passed. So parang binigyan lang ng lip service ng iba sa congress. And even the champions of the FOI believed that they will be able to pass it. Because at the very last minute, nandun na eh. Ipepresent nalang for plenary tapos biglang nagdeclare ng lack of quorum because of this person, si Antonino who was pushing for the right of reply. So in the next congress, yun na yung nakapasok nun. And what is ironic there is that in a speech of President Aquino, parang inendorse pa niya yung ROR rather than the FOI where it was his campaign promise to push for the passage of the FOI bill.`It was for transparency and accountability and his fight against corruption.

5. Do presidents have an effect in law making?

They do have a large effect on the legislative process, when they certify a bill as urgent, especially a president as popular as Aquino. Siguro kung with GMA yan baka magkaroon pa ng problema, but with Aquino if he certifies the bill as urgent like what happened to the RH Bill. So in three days it was passed. How long has the RH bill been in congress? Mas matagal pa yan sa FOI. Pero a president can have a vastly huge influence on the actions of congress, kahit di niya sabihing oi ipasa niyo yan. But if he certifies it as urgent, especially if the president enjoys quite popular support, pasado yan sigurado.

6. How has PNoy backed his claims regarding the FOI?

Well he's always saying that he's for the bill and even people in Malacanang say so. However they keep on saying also that they are leaving it up to congress to debate knowing the composition of congress. So parang washing their hands off but at the same time you cannot fault them. But if you say okay I will certify this as urgent because I believe in it, then that's another story.

7. The 14th congress almost passed the FOI bill. Does it have anything to do with Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, given the kind of government she was running then?

Maybe partly. But it is again debunked by what happened in the 15th congress. So it's really people in congress themselves, the congressmen, representatives. These are people who are still part of the old political elite. Yung kanilang systems ay ganun pa rin. I think it's not because of GMA's influence at the time, maybe partly true because there are things she wants to hide, but generally I think it's really congress.

8. Is there enough public clamor for the bill right now?

Alam mo that's a very good question because that's the thing that's missing. People don't seem to be able to relate to FOI because they are not able to relate information with their daily lives. And I think that's the challenge for all of us. Especially among us who are involved in the campaign. Sa tingin ko, personally, there's a lack really of heightening awareness about the FOI. How can it get more popular? Bakit yung sa cybercrime? Sandali lang pero andami na. Social media, twitter, FB, lahat, so much reactions. Ang laki ng impact kaagad and so widespread. Bakit yung FOI ang tagal tagal na pero yung tao parang... Personally, I think it's because people can't relate to something that's so difficult to understand. So I think the challenge for us, especially now, in the 16th congress, to be able to build constituencies. For people to be able to understand it better. Ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng FOI sa buhay namin? In fact ang dami ngang debate sa paggawa ng slogan eh. Yung ipasa na yung FOI. Ano ba yun? Parang ang hirap to look for a slogan that will carry the campaign. So yun yung isang challenge dyan. So I think yung isa naming failure is to generate public support. Kahit maraming civil society partners, people don't talk about it.

9. So how will you generate public support?

I don't have any idea yet how. But we do have individually, yung mga organizations namin, like us for instance, we always carry the discussion of the FOI whenever we have trainings and workshops outside in the provinces. That's where we also generate reactions and information about how people think about it. As I said, parang kailangan ipopularize yung language ng FOI. Ano ba yung translation nito sa Tagalog? Wala eh. Kalayaan...

10. Paano niyo po pinapaliwanag sa mga tao?

Nililink namin. Kasi pareho nga dun sa killings ng mga journalists. Pag pinatay mo ang isang journalist anong ibig sabihin niyan? Hindi lang may pinatay na tao o may pinatay na mamamahayag. Ang pinapatay mo dyan yung roots ng demokrasya, yung flow ng information. Parang ganun din sa FOI. Kung wala kang information, kasi yan yung powerful na institution, pwede niyang gawin ang kahit anong gusto niyang gawin ng hindi mo alam. Malay mo niluluto ka na sa sarili mong mantika. You have to try to break the concept down into chewable pieces. Napakachallenging kasi ang lawak naman ng Pilipinas so you need resources for that. In some areas, halimbawa yung mga major cities in the provinces, I would say nagkakaroon din ng mobilizations tuwing may actions yung coalition. But that's about it. If you go to the rural areas, wala eh. We started some sort of an activity sa probinsya na parang write your congressmen na ipasa na natin tong FOI. But people, Filipinos in particular, aren't so keen in writing. Magaling lang tayo magreklamo but when we're asked to write, people don't. You have to present it to them, give them the facility to be able to do that. I hope pagdating sa 16th congress kung meron kaming energy, is to really be able to dwell. Because unless you have public support, like what happened sa Cybercrime, walang mangyayari. Because the congressment don't feel it. Walang pressure sa kanila. And the president does not feel it. O parang you're just a small group. Kahit sabihin mo pang you're 200 organizations, it's still a small group. But if you're talking about people from all over the Philippines saying now we need that, then that's different. So yun yung isang malaking challenge and I think it should be the main focus of the campaign rather than tututok naman kami sa congress and we've had so many lessons already working with congressmen. Baka yun yung maging strategy for the next congress.

11. What was in the 12th congress that organizations decided to form a coalition together?

Wala naman. Pero I think the person who can give you a better grasp on the history of the campaign ay si Nepo. Mas matagal siyang nasa campaign rather than us eh. Kasi nung ininvite niya kami magjoin almost 12th congress na yun eh. Ano palang yun, Access to Information Network. So siya and then TAN, Transparency and Accountability Network, nauna rin sa amin eh, sina Vincent Lazatin. Maybe you can talk to him also. Sila yung mas matagal na kaysa sa amin dun sa campaign. So I think they would have more knowledge and understanding what went on before.

Personal Interview Ed Lingao February 22, 2013

1. Sir, why wasn’t the media covering the FOI bill in its early days?

I think before, walang coalition or network that was fighting for it. There were other things that appeared on the plate of everybody else during that time. For example, in 1992, you're talking about the first presidential elections since EDSA. That's one. The other thing is, that was the time we were having peace talks with ram. So maraming ibang nasa plato ng mga reporter and ng mga csos. Maaring hindi pa siya nasa list of priorities ng maraming tao. And it's easier now that you have a network. Madaling maghugot hugot. I guess, during that time, wala pa talaga sa list of priorities ng maraming tao.

2. Kailan po kayo or ang PCIJ naging involved sa FOI?

I'm not sure kung kailan yung right Right to Know, Right Now nagcoalesce eh. I'm not sure about that, I have to check with Malou on that because I've only been in PCIJ in 2009, so it predates me. Actually ako, just when I joined PCIJ.

During the Gloria years, not that it's an excuse, again, there were other things on the plate of everybody else. That would include attempts to stifle press freedom directly. FOI kasi is bit of a more indirect answer to press freedom eh. It's loosening controls on government information. But in the time of Gloria, it was the other way around. There were repeated attempts to crack down on the media itself on expression, not on the access to information, but on expression. That's a step further eh. So during that time, I would imagine the emphasis was to protect the barricades. I guess inclusions on the freedom of expression. Alam mo yun, kasi if this is freedom of expression, the other one is freedom of information. This is the freedom to bring out. This is the freedom to take out. They're complementary, but one is the polar opposite of the other.

3. Ironically sir, yung pinakamalayong narrating po ng FOI was during the 14th congress. How do we make sense of that?

That is true. It's difficult to make sense of that. We've asked ourselves that several times. How is it that it's the GMA congess that almost passed the FOI? I don't think anybody's really come up with a satisfactory answer to that yet eh. GMA never committed to the FOI, not like Pnoy. Pnoy committed to the FOI while he was still a candidate, and the he recommitted himself as a president though not is a direct way. He had his communications group engage us. I was never really satisfied with the answers that have come out on that issue. 4. What were the answers that have come up?

Isa, baka iba yung composition ng congress. The other is that, GMA was already on the way out. That was a time when, you might call it a lame duck thing, when the president no longer had the same hold that she used to have over congress. That makes more sense than the others, which could be why it did not advance as much in the previous congress, in the 13th congress.14th congress kasi, pagoodbye na yan, eh. And GMA then was the one of the most hated presidents during that time.

So, I would imagine that it would've been easier for legislators to be convinced that it was the most populist thing to do, the most popular thing to do, to move on the FOI now that the president is on her way out, and that she's very unpopular, as against now, that you have a very popular president, one who has waffled, neither here nor there, sometimes mukhang oo, pero sometimes mukhang hindi. Hindi mo matantya kung ano ka ba talaga. That could signal the congress, and at the time when he's still very popular, the signals can be taken either which way. And if you ask Ben Evardone, sabi ni Ben Evardone, I've been waiting for a signal from the president. That's very clear. It has not come. And Ben Evardone is on the pecking order of the LP in the campaign. If he's that close to the president, what does that tell you? And what does that tell the rest of congress?

5. What can you say about PNoy’s claim that he's supporting the bill?

I suppose, as a matter of principle, he does support an FOIA. But you know, support is relative eh. In the same way that everybody, every president would claim that he supports democracy, but even that democracy could have several degrees. So, si Pnoy had quite a lot of concerns about the FOI from the very start. In a way he's much like his mother. Cory had general ideas about democracy which were acceptable naman, but she also had very personal feelings about the press in the sense that she took things very personally. Yeah you're free and I believe in freedom of expression, I believe in the freedom of the press, pero you're hitting me eh. Although she never cracked down on the press, but she would sometimes lash out at the press, and that would send reverberations down the line, although not on a legal way. You might say that it's a very unpolitical or a very politically unsophisticated way of dealing with the press, because the more sophisticated politician would or a more savvy politician would know how to massage the press eh. Would know how to deal with the press, and you could see that in a lot of senators. For example, kahit inis na inis na sila, magaling sila magmasahe, they know how to get back to the good graces of the press . Not that politicians should do that, pero you can see where Cory and Pnoy are coming from. Sila yung tipong pag g alit sila, pag inis sila, they show it. That could be good or bad at the same time, kasi nga whatever they say, hay ever comes out from them has implications on the political level as well.

6. What are the factors that affect the passage of an FOIA?

You might want to narrow it down kasi ang daming factors niyan eh. Factors from the president, or factors in congress, or in general. Pwede mong himayin ng ganun. Factor one would be presidential support. A clear, unequivocal voice from Olympus could clearly push it through. Everybody in congress says they're waiting for a word from the president, and the president isn't saying anything. So if the president says, finally, that you guys should work on that, then there shouldn't be any more excuse from the minions. Clear, unequivocal support from the president. Number two is, assuming you get number one, number two is a very cooperative congress. Assuming that you get number one and assuming that the congress is still pandering to Malacanang because the president it still very popular.

Assuming that you don't get number one, number two would be a congress that is proactive and progressive, which appear not to have yet. Although you could see that there are champions of the FOI in congress, pero iilan lang sila eh. In the end you go back to the fence sittersd which is most of them. You have the very noisy ones who are against, you have the very noisy ones who are for, and you have a big gray area of fence sitters who would usually want to err on the conservative side of things, which is that if we don't have to, we shouldn't.' If we don't have to release documents or information, then huwag na lang. Let's be conservative about it. And you could imagine that almost everybody would be on that side of the fence.

When you talk to Teddy Baguilat, the congressman who's very proactive for the FOI, si Teddy would say na sa congress, usap usapan yan, na kung kailangan talaga, if is ano, di susunod tayo. Pero kung di naman kailangan, ba’t pa tayo maglalabas? Ano, uungkatin nila lahat ng detalye mula sa mga ninuno natin? A lot of them are dynasties eh. Ibang galing sa congress, 3rd generation, 4th generation, or 2nd generation. So ang worry nila, baka uungkatin yung mga pinaggagagawa ng mga tatay natin, lolo natin. Para saan yan? Bakit parang gugulo lang ang buhay natin eh. That could be number four. The feeling na hindi pa ba sapat ito that we have a very democratic government? Isn't that enough? That is also malacanang's argument for the longest time. The DBM has been publishing data. Several executive departments have been uploading data on the Internet which is good. So therefore, you would have the argument that we don't need an FOI, we’re transparent right now, which is also good but is also misleading kasi then you also have the argument that no, you'll only last for six years. If you don’t have the structure, the mechanism, or the legal framework that will continue the transparency after you step down, then you go back to square one. So what, we're going to be dependent on the president who feels today that I want to be transparent? Very personalized naman ang presidency mo.

7. What's the difference between the Senate and the HoR? Why did the Senate pass it more quickly?

First of all, we have fewer senators. And those senators are, generally speaking, of a more sophisticated mindset. Iba kasi. If you look at the senate, the senators are elected on a national scale. The congressmen are elected in a very local scale. So usually, when you are elected on a local scale, you tend to think in terms of kingdoms, little fiefdoms. A district's actually a little kingdom where you throw in your patronage, throw in your pork barrel and you select who which among your minions to propagate and to promote, so on and so forth. You have more to hide in your little kingdom than you would if your constituency was nationwide. Masmasaling magtago pag congressman. Mas mahirap magtago pag senador. O yun, also yun nga, because you're elected on a national level, mas sophisticated ang political thinking mo, so you tend to think in terms of what the media wants. Pag senador ka eh, what would the media want? I know this doesn't sound so good ah, but you tend to pander more on the media eh. Unlike the congressmen, they tend to pander more to patronage politics. What would I need in my fiefdom for me ,to be able to run for re-election? So iba yung realities nila. In other words, mas swabe yung mga senador. Mas marunong sila maglaro. I’m not saying they're better.

8. Is there enough public clamor for FOI?

There's substantial public clamor. I don't know lang if you could say that there's enough in the sense that you would want to see. Kasi alam mo, ang hirap kasi ibebenta ang FOI sa publiko na ang main concern ay presyo ng langis, presyo ng bigas. Di mo naman makakain ang FOI eh. Buti sana kung freedom of load or freedom of rice. Freedom of information, ang hirap ibenta eh. Ang hirap ipaliwanag.

9. So how do you explain it to the public?

Not easy, but you as the voter or you as constituent should have the freedom to ask where the money of your barangay is going. Bakit yung health center mo ay walang budget? Bakit yung konsehal mo ay parang yumayaman ata at ang lakila laki ng Makati at QC pero bakit parang naambunan lang kayo? That is how you try to deal with popularizing the issue of FOI that it’s not just a media issue, although we would appear to be the biggest beneficiaries, but it is your issue as a voter, as a constituent, because in the end, it is your money. You as a taxpayer should have the freedom to ask where your money goes. But it's still very hard. Likewise, hirap ipaliwanag yung ROR, bakit hindi maganda yung ROR. Tama naman may karapatan dapat silang mag reply eh. Ang hirap iargumento, and then you talk about press freedom, the right against prior restraint and all that, the right for you to have an editorial policy of your own, from incursions by political forces to dictate on what should be your headline. Parang hah? Ano yan? Diba dapat patas lang naman dapat?

10. How would FOI fare in the 16th congress?

It depends on the president. I know was FOI was able to make progress despite the former president, despite Gloria. But realities were different then eh. Realities are different now. If the president continues to waffle on the FOI, concern is that you might still not get an FOI even under a more democratic president. Because nga of that feeling na democratic ka na eh, it's not needed. And si GMA kasi was not one to talk about the FOI bill naman eh, she was not one to go into the intricacies of why she wanted or not wanted. It was not on her radar eh. But if Pnoy says that he has concerns for the FOI because of this and that, then the congress gets ideas. Presidente mo ganyan eh. Kung si bossing pala may problema dun, eh bakit tayo aandar. So mas maigi pa yung kung ayaw niya talaga, wag na lang siya umimik. Di yung eh kasi naman yung media eh kinakalkal patients yung love life ko. If the president says that, then that sends signals to congress. Eh siya naman, kahit hindi siya tinatanong, pinaguusapan niya yung love life niya.

11. Bakit nung 12th congress lang po na-form yung coalition?

I’m afraid I cannot answer that question.

12. How have you pushed for the FOI?

We're trying to personalize it. Ito pera mo, dapat alam mo, dapat makialam ka. What they've been trying to do since late last year, the Right to Know Right Now coalition, they've been trying to devolve the issue down to the local levels. The Right to Know Right Now coalition is composed of urban poor groups, civil society individuals. Last year, the coalition has been organizing fora, for example, women's groups in QC, in Marikina, where the issue is explained. Kayo as women's groups you could ask about information about the budget for health clinics, nailabas ba, nagagastos ba yung pera sa tamang gamot. You should be able to ask that, you should be able to ask for documents or data. We've been trying to do it that way. Sectoral issues that people can relate to. Putting a face on transparency and government.

13. What else can the government do?

Nakarecess na eh, congress will resume in June for three days just for the purpose of formally adjourning. There's no more hope for the 15th congress, 16th congress lang talaga. Again you start from scratch, of course, perhaps you might have a new group of legislators here and there, but were still taking off from where we left off which is an administration that continues to waffle on their stance with FOI and a congress that would take its cue from that administration. Throw in the complication that this would be the second half of his term which in this case he'll begin to be a lame duck president by 2014. So yung influence niya would begin to wane. That can be good or bad. It's really hard to say. It depends on which way the wind blows eh. If the president continues to be very popular in the last few years, if he gets the wild idea of supporting the FOI then that would be good. Pero if you leave it to a conservative congress kasi then you would never go anywhere. You go back to that eh. You're talking about a chamber of fence sitters who'd rather err on the side of conservatism especially when it comes to divulging information about them. The best proof of that is the SALN. The senators have all released their SALNs, the executive has released their SALN, walang problema dun. Congress, you could not get them to release their SALNs. Not as a group, and not individually. Individually, yeah, you could get a smattering of SALNs, pero generally wala. Hindi na lahat kayo majority administration coalition? Akala ko transparent kayo? Hindi pa rin eh. Look at it this way, we almost got it during Gloria's time despite Gloria, so if you have a proactive congress in the 16th congress, you could, there's a chance and it will be nice to get a push from Malacanang. But if the signals from Malacañang are on the negative side, then pare-parehong walang chance. Ang daming ifs eh.

Personal Interview Vincent Lazatin March 5, 2013

1. Since when have you or your organization been active in the campaign for an FOI?

Since pretty much the beginning of the organization so that was 2001. When we formed the organization in early 2001, there was a national consultation for an anti-corruption agenda. And I think one of the things that was identified in the eight point agenda was the need for freedom of information legislation.

2. Since 2001, what factors have you noticed that either hinder or contribute to the passage of an FOI or its development?

Well, hindrance is really lack of commitment and political will from our political leaders to pass the legislation. In 2001... 4... 7... so 14, 13, 12. In the 12th congress is when we started our involvement. We really didn't get much headway in the legislation. I think one of the reasons perhaps is that there was just a small group of us pushing for it. And that was also true for the 13th congress in 2004. Although by the 13th congress I think we were trying to increase our number. It wasn't until the 14th congress where we made a conscious effort to create a real campaign around FOI. And so from 2001 til about 2007, it was just what we called the Access to Information Network. Maybe about less than 10 organizations that were involved with the Access to Information Network. So then in 2007 or post 2007 we decided that if we really wanted to try to generate more public support we had to create a larger coalition. So it was sometime in the 14th congress when we launched the Right to Know, Right Now campaign. And that's when we really increased the number of advocates for freedom of information. And a conscious effort was made to reach out to all different kinds of sectors. Whereas before the access to information network was primarily public interest groups and media groups, by the time we sat to expand the campaign for the Right to Know, Right Now coalition we were reaching out to public sector, to labor, to human rights, social development, business. So we really widened the campaign to other sectors and groups.

3. Why was it during the 14th congress that the coalition realized it needed to get bigger?

Yeah I guess it was after going through the 12th and 13th congress unsuccessfully without getting a significant movement in the legislation, by the 14th congress we felt that maybe it's time to broaden the base. And also by that time, 2007, I think there were really very heightened concerns and I think this was what was crucial because from 2001 to approximately 2005, people weren't really focusing on freedom of information as a real, sort of good governance piece of legislation. Post Garci in 2005 when the political situation turned bad, the Arroyo administration was put in survival mode and it terms of corruption things started getting worse, then I think more and more groups started to realize the importance of the freedom of information. So by the time 2007 came around, the 14th congress, a lot more groups were talking about freedom of information.

4. Aside from forming a bigger coalition, what else were the changes in terms of activities from the Access to Information Network to the Right to Know, Right Now coalition?

Well for the first time, with a wider coalition, we had mass demonstrations. We couldn't mount mass demonstrations with a handful of organizations. So we did a couple of mobilizations to try to put pressure on the legislators to pass freedom of information. That sort of held on since the formation of the Right to Know, Right Now coalition.

5. Why do you think the bill got to its farthest during the 14th congress?

I think a couple of things happened there and I'll contrast it with the current 15th congress. I think that in the 14th congress the legislators were taken by surprise. I don't think they were prepared for the legislation to go as far as it did. And so they were sort of off guard, for those who were posing it. And then in the end, as you know, they just killed it with call for quorum. In the 15th congress I think the volume had been raised significantly enough. The legislators were aware of it and even the new president also was aware of it. So that I think there was a conscious effort to make sure that it didn't progress.

6. What can you say about the president's support or lack of support for the bill?

I think the president has, by his actions, shown that he is not in favor of the bill. I mean I think that's clear to us. Because if he were, then he would have passed it. Now he has said through his spokesperson that they're not prioritizing it because they don't see the public clamour for it. I don't recall any public clamour for Cybercrime Law and yet Cybercrime was enacted. So I don't think public clamour is really a real issue. I think at the level of the president, he has discomfort with sharing information especially with media. I think his fears are one, that media is corrupt and therefore will just abuse the information. To some extent I agree with him on that. And I think two, he fears that the information may be abused by his political rivals or opponents. I don't agree with that. I don't think that he should be fearful of that. If he is on the daang matuwid, no matter what information people would dig up and try to throw at you, if there's nothing wrong, there's nothing wrong, right? And that will die a natural death. During the time of GMA, scandals were coming up every week and granted we didn't have access to information legislation but the media was able to dig up the information anyway. And yet all the we threw against GMA, nothing was enough to unseat her. So I don't see why the president, the current president Aquino, would be fearful about that. On his fears on media, while I agree with him that media is corrupt, I don't agree with holding FOI a hostage until media addresses its issues. So going back to I think that's where the president stands. Now that the 15th congress, just going back to my comparison with the 14th congress, I think the awareness was high and therefore a lot of the opponents were on guard, as compared to the 14th congress where they were really taken by surprise. And that's why I think in the 14th congress it got as far as it did. And plus we did have very good champions both in the House and in the Senate. In the 14th congress we had Senator Allan Peter Cayetano. His predecessor earlier in the 14th congress was Senator Revilla who actually did nothing for the bill. But when there was a change in leadership I think it was from Villar to Enrile there was a shuffle in the committees and the committee on Mass Media and Public Information went to Peter Cayetano. In the lower house we had Representative Benny Abante who was initially sort of playing along with us. I don't think he was at the beginning an advocate. What was crucial in the 14th congress was that he let Congressman Erin Tanada take chairmanship of the TWG. And under the stewardship of Tanada, things really moved. In the 15th congress we basically had a committee chairman in the House in the name of Ben Evardone who from the very get go was not for freedom of information no matter what public statements he has made.

7. What's the difference between working with the Senate and the House of Representatives?

Well first is that they're just a sheer number. In the Senate you're working with a lot less people. And there is in the 15th and the 14th congress, there's very little resistance in the Senate. The most we got were some questions from the likes of Senator Arroyo, Senator Santiago, but those concerns were overcome. In the House it's a completely different dynamic. You got so many more people to deal with. And that makes it all the more difficult. Because we don't have real parties in this country, you can't even work with the parties. It's really working with individuals.

8. Why do you think there's less resistance in the Senate?

I'm not sure. One is because there's so few of them resistors can be easily identified. When you're sitting among 23 others and you resist it, it's easy to be noticed. But I don't know. I really can't think of any other reason but that.

9. What can you say about the issue with the current version of the bill being "watered down?”

I think the coalition has made a stand that it doesn't believe that the bill has been watered down. The latest draft, I forget which HB number we're talking about, I think is something that is acceptable to the FOI advocates. We've bent a little on some areas and these are the areas which I think are not the non negotiables.

10. What do you think, if there is any, is lacking in the campaign for the FOI?

I think what we perhaps failed to do as a campaign is to make it an everyday issue for people. A lot of people think that freedom of information is a very high level policy issue and that it doesn't affect the day to day lives of people. And so I think as a campaign what we have failed to do is show... (cellphone feedback 15:13-15:30)

11. What future can you see for the bill?

The future I see is legislation in one way or another. I have a sneaky suspicion that perhaps President Aquino will support it in the final years of his administration. Because it's hard to be a president on a platform of good governance and daang matuwid without having the freedom of information. So perhaps towards the end of his term we might see him supporting the bill.

12. Why not now?

Well I think it's because of some of the fears he has that I expressed earlier. Freedom of information, the advocacy's been around for over a decade. The president made a few words during the campaign that we needed legislation and yet here we are with no legislation. 10 years ago nobody was talking about Cybercrime Prevention. The president never mentioned anything about Cybercrime Prevention in his campaign. And yet he signed a law on cybercrime. He's made a couple of public statements about media, about how media's abusive, he's made a reference to right of reply. So if you read into his public statements you'll see where he lies on that. I think there's a bit of a condescending tone, that he thinks people could not be trusted with information. And while I give his administration credit for being the most transparent administration we've seen in decades, there comes with that a bit of arrogance. Him saying well don't worry about transparency because we'll release information when we want it. We're doing well so don't question us. And I think that's the wrong attitude, for a couple of reasons. One is the president only really has control over the executive branch. The freedom of information would cover all three branches. Second is, by taking that stand, he's not doing anything for the institutionalization of the access to information. Because the very next president could very well rescind whatever EOs the president has issued in terms of disclosure and transparency. I don't know if he's playing stupid but I'm sure he realized that.

13. What do you think about the attempts to insert a right of reply section in the FOI?

I think the right of reply is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with the freedom of information. And again the legislators that are trying to push that are showing their hand in terms of their fears. And to be honest while there is a large constituency for the freedom of infomation I don't see any constituency outside the halls of Congress pushing for the right of reply. The constituency for the right of reply besides well within the well of Congress, I mean it's only the congressmen and the public officials who care for the right of reply. (feedback 19:30-19:39) But they are two separate issues and should not be taken up simultaneously.

14. How do you think the campaign for the passage of the bill will improve?

You mean in the 16th congress? I think we made a different attack in the 16th congress. We've learned a lot working in the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th congress. Some of that, those lessons, we can use in the 16th congress. Since it's a matter of strategy, I don't know if Nepo disclosed it, but I don't think we want to reveal it just yet.

(cellphone feedback 20:35-20:57)

Well it's in the constitution.

15. The actual bill was filed in 1992 and it took a while before anyone acted on it. Why do you think this is so?

(cellphone feedback 21:18-21:23) So I'm not really sure why nobody picked it up. I don't know maybe there wasn't enough public interest groups. I don't know. I'm not sure.