Malacanang said that President Benigno S. Aquino III has approved in principle the passage of the proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill pending several concerns that are yet to be addressed through careful study and deliberation. Below is latest statement of the Right to Know, Right Now!/Bantay FOI, Sulong FOI! Coalition on the failure of President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III to submit the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill among his priority legislative measures to the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council. In gist, it laments the President’s dithering on a strategic policy issue that the Constitution has obliged him and all public officials to uphold and enforce – the people’s right to know.

It states as well the undiminished resolve of the Coalition to press on with its campaign, but this time, to prod the Senate and the House of Representatives to rush action on the bill, without need for cue or advice from Malacañang.

GMAnewstv’s Investigative Documentaries tackles the need for a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) in the Philippines, and the reasons for the apparent delay in the passage of the measure

Kung talagang gusto, hahanap ng paraan.
Kung talagang ayaw, hahanap ng dahilan.

This is exactly where President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III stands on the proposed Freedom of Information bill, which seeks only to enforce a constitutionally guaranteed right of the people to know and secure documents in the custody of government agencies.

The President says he supports the bill in principle, but that he has “specific questions and concerns” that he wants to be settled, before he endorses it as his priority legislation. His concerns, the President says, include his fears that FOI could unlock documents that might expose people to kidnappers, cause government losses in right-of-way cases because of property price speculations, and many other unwanted results.

Yet over the last 14 months in office, he has failed to answer and settle these concerns, and for as long a period, the FOI bill has languished in limbo.

A Malacañang study group on the FOI had told us about other, bigger concerns of the President. Through Deputy Speaker and Quezon Rep. Erin Tañada, chief author of the FOI bill in the House of Representatives, we informally and indirectly engaged the study group in constructive dialogue over the last six months.

Two critical concerns on exceptions were addressed over time in three successive drafts of the FOI bill that the Palace study group crafted – “national security” and the President’s deliberative process. These were in addition to existing exceptions in the FOI bill based on national defense and foreign affairs; military or law enforcement operation; privacy; trade, industrial or commercial secrets; drafts of adjudicatory decisions; privileged information in legal proceedings; executive session of Congress; and exceptions recognized in other statutes or the Constitution.

The legislative process practically ground to a halt, precisely because the President and his study group said they were drafting their own FOI bill. We had hoped that by the opening of the second regular session of Congress, the Palace draft would be done, and the President would have certified it as a priority measure.

We had hoped as much because we still remember: As the presumptive winner of the May 2010 elections, the President had promised to assign first priority to the FOI’s passage into law, and in June 2010, as president, he launched his government on the principles of transparency, accountability, and good governance.

This is the first time we are hearing that the President has new concerns about what he says could be the undesirable results of an FOI law.

The President assures us that he supports the FOI bill “in principle” but that because his concerns linger, he could not act on his own study group’s version of the FOI bill.

What seems like a state of principled indecision in Malacañang makes us wonder: Is the President part of the solution, or part of the problem, in assuring the passage of the FOI bill? Or perhaps neither, because he has chosen to pass up a chance to lead on a strategic policy issue that the Constitution has so clearly mandated him and all public officials to uphold and enforce – the people’s right to know.

The fate of the FOI bill was a leadership call on the President. We had not wished he would default. Yet because he has, we now refocus our efforts on the House of Representatives and the Senate, which should, without need for cue or advice from Malacañang, act now and quickly on the FOI bill.

We do so with eyes wide open that as it was in the 14th Congress under then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the FOI bill could face rough, tough sailing in the 15th Congress. While Mrs. Arroyo and her allies vigorously opposed and killed the bill before it could be ratified, Mr. Aquino and his allies now seem to want to let the bill waste away, and fade in time.

THE RIGHT TO KNOW, RIGHT NOW! COALITION/
BANTAY FOI, SULONG FOI! CAMPAIGN
17 AUGUST 2011

The controversial Freedom on Information (FOI) Bill failed again to make the list of priority bills during the second Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (Ledac) meeting led by President Benigno Aquino III on Tuesday.

But Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda clarified that the President just wants more time to elaborate the FOI bill.

“This is not the last chance we’ve got to prioritize the bill. We still have four years and nine months to go. There will be several Ledac meetings,” spokesman Lacierda pointed as quoted by interaksyon.

Bayan Muna Representative Teddy Casiño’s earlier statement that the second Ledac meeting will be the last chance of President Aquino to redeem himself by prioritizing the bill and to ensure its passage into law.

“We have certain concerns — valid concerns raised by the President himself. But it is not dead in the water. We agree with the FOI in principle but there are certain concerns that have to be addressed. We agree in principle that the FOI bill must be passed,” Lacierda added on the same report.

The Palace version of the FOI Bill provides the formation of an independent Information Commission that would be the mediator between the government and any parties who have queries concerning the bill’s implementation.

Rep. Casiño, author of the FOI bill, said on Monday that the House Committee on Public Information has postponed its discussion and even “watered down” the bill just to make way for President’s concerns, yet he has failed to include the Freedom on Information bill on his priority measures.

“If the Ledac fails to include the FOI bill as a priority, then forget about the matuwid na daan. It will confirm the suspicion of many that transparency and accountability is only being applied to the previous administration and that the President would rather continue the practice of withholding vital information from the public,” Casiño said as quoted by a report on sunstar.

Last Sunday, Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte confirmed that the FOI Bill along with Reproductive Health (RH) Bill were discussed during the full cabinet meeting presided by President Aquino on Friday in preparation for the Ledac meeting. The final list remained unclosed until today.

The FOI bill and RH bill both failed to make the cut for the first Ledac meeting held last February 28. Both bills have been pending in congress for quite some time now.

Kabataan Party-list Rep. Raymond “Mong” Palatino today hit President Benigno Aquino III for his professed “internet for all” and “e-governance” commitment while “misallocating” a P1.16 billion budget for telegrams and disposing zero budget for the procurement of computers and internet equipment.

In today’s Congress budget hearing, Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Secretary Mario Montejo said that President Aquino has set e-governance, internet for all, and support for the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry as the priority areas of the department.

“President Aquino’s ICT programs such as because of the mismatch in his funding priority. The seemingly modern and technological framework of the DOST is undercut by the misallocated P1.16-B budget for telegrams and zero budget for the Capital Outlay of the NCC, which could be used for the procurement of computers and internet equipment,” Palatino said.

Of DOST’s proposed 2012 budget of P9.35 billion, P1.16-B is allocated for its Telegraph Office while zero budget is allocated for the Capital Outlay of its National Computer Center (NCC), the lead government agency for promoting the strategic use of ICT.

“If President Aquino understands the importance and potential of ICT in good governance, I do not understand why he seemingly prioritizes the funding of telegrams instead of ensuring people’s access to information technology. I hope the President will review his ICT programs. It would be unfortunate if the benefits of ICT will not be realized due to misdirected funding,” he added.

Early this year, Palatino filed in Congress House Bill no. 4271 or the “Free Public Wi-Fi Act” which aims to make “free internet connection available in buildings of all government-related offices including regional and satellite offices, municipal halls, provincial capitols, state universities and colleges, public parks and plazas, public hospitals and public transportation terminals such as airports and bus stations.”

In a report released June this year, the United Nations listed internet access as a basic human right, saying that it is “…one of the most powerful instruments of the 21st century for increasing transparency in the conduct of the powerful, access to information, and for facilitating active citizen participation in building democratic societies.”

Image via publicus.net

by Yfur Porsche P. Fernandez

Despite the Internet’s appreciation as an accepted information source, non-adult consumers should still be aware of its limitations and threats.

However, while books are still regarded as the most trusted sources, sets of good references are also now available online.

A ‘rational’ choice?

As many people consider the Internet as an inseparable part of today’s educational system, increasing number of academic institutions view it as an almost, if not an indispensable component of a ‘revolutionized’ educational structure, especially in the post-modern culture.

While this medium has metaphorically minimized the pain and maximized the gain of students, researchers and other Internet-users, a direct consequence of it now flounders — as it moves closer to the consciousness of its principal consumer,the young minds.

Being mindful, not alarmist

The society (parents, private sector and education authorities) faces a demanding and challenging task of protecting students from negative elements the Internet has uncovered – including, but not limited to pornographic sites, sexual dating sites, and many others.

Putting it in context, though the Internet has irrefutably contributed useful and speedy impacts on today’s social DNA, it has unfortunately magnified sinister elements to flow liberally and navigate spontaneously, in an instant.

Highlighting the “goods”

Recognizing the share of Internet’s bad effects, many U.S. academicians nowadays, are promoting e-books, which are technically books, discarding the sensation of experience, due to its very nature of being “electronic.”

An article entitled Best References for Students Today presents a list of top websites that vows to address the educational needs of the students today.

The list includes general publications, electronic libraries, organization websites, government portals, news agency sites and other relevant materials. (Suite 101 Media, published October 14, 2010, accessed July 29, 2011)

Here are some of the links applicable to the Philippines:

• Encyclopedia Britannica – an online version of one of the world’s most trusted sources of information on science and technology, history and society, arts and entertainment, travel and geography and many others

• Information Please Almanac – a useful tool to search facts on a wide array of subjects

• iTools Research –collection of online dictionaries, translations, quotations and more

• Smithsonian Institution – a user-friendly site from the world’s largest museum complex and research organization

‘Erosion of the Mind’

Neil Maroki, in The Impact of the Internet on the Educational Systems in the New Millennium,says one major drawback of the Internet is the erosion of the mind.

He writes, “The Internet will eventually cause the mind to be obsolete simply because it will not be used anymore. For this reason, the thinking ability will greatly diminish and man will not be able to do simple things in the future.”

Maroki explains that it will greatly affect the educational process in the future because the thinking abilities of the students will be impaired and the information will be stored in the computer’s memory not in the student’s mind.

At the moment, what appears to be the problem is the limitless movement of information of “all” kinds. While there is already an option to filter searches, one can still choose to turn this option off as a human tendency.

The medium has apparently launched a wide array of risky and malicious content sources and research sites. Most of them successfully intrude the moral and values, if not tease young minds’ vulnerabilities.

An integrated role

Even though reference tools and research sites are now available in just few clicks, parents still have supervisory roles in a child’s consciousness-building.

On the one hand, public officials should make it a crusade not to stop framing tangible and accurate measures to lure away non-adult users from insidious mechanisms that aim at corrupting their minds — even if this means some sides affronted.

The Internet definitely has good use, as long as it is neither misused nor abused. Each of us may take part in wisely maximizing its advantages and utilize its product for a good cause.

While we may not, at this moment obliterate its share of disadvantages, we can start echoing our sentiments to debunk its “improper” use.

Though this may sound an ‘old moniker,’ the youth really is the frontrunner of the society, and therefore realistic preparations are necessary before win.

By The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
Last of Two Parts

(First part is Access to info in Metro Manila

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

Yet while even President Benigno Simeon ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III himself seems unsure just how much he wants his government to be transparent, the World Bank, a solicitous donor of the Aquino administration, recently released a document that explicitly proposed that the government “put forward a Freedom of Information Act for legislative approval.”

At the same time, the latest results of a transparency and accountability drive of the Department of the Interior and Local Governments (DILG) show local governments outside of Metro Manila outperforming those in the National Capital Region.
Not one of the dozens of local governments that has so far been cited by the DILG as being “ehemplo” or good examples in planning, sound fiscal management, transparency and accountability, and valuing performance information came from Metro Manila.

A recent audit conducted by PCIJ revealed poor performance by Metro Manila local governments – more than half of which are headed by Aquino’s partymates and political allies – in fulfilling citizen requests for specific documents on the most basic services.

Most made accessing documents imbued with public interest a serious test of patience, stamina, resources, and will, with many ignoring deadlines for action imposed on them by law.

DILG honor roll

Not surprisingly, not one Metro Manila local government unit (LGU) has made it to the DILG’s latest “Good Housekeeping” honor roll that lists those from Anilao, Iloilo; Balete, Aklan; Balilihan and Catigbian in Bohol; Damulog, Bukidnon; Datu Paglas, Maguindanao; Leon B. Postigo and Tampilisan in Zamboanga del Norte; Pitogo, Quezon; Mobo, Masbate; Naawan, Misamis Oriental; San Agustin, Surigao del Sur; Santol, La Union; and Sto. Domingo, Albay.

Just last March, the DILG also cited 15 high-performing LGUs, mostly from Mindanao, “good housekeeping” such as those in Alilem in Ilocos Sur; Quezon, Isabela and Saguday in Quirino; Mataas na Kahoy in Batangas; Camaligan in Camarines Sur; Banaue and Lagawe in Ifugao; Amlan in Negros Oriental; Maribojoc in Bohol; Kawayan in Biliran; Calamba in Misamis Occidental; Dujali in Davao del Norte; Cagwait and Carrascal in Surigao del Sur, and San Jose in Dinagat Islands.

These LGUs, according to DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo, have had “no adverse” report from the Commission on Audit.

The uneven observance of transparency and accountability across LGUs – and government agencies – lingers apparently because of the absence of uniformed and clear procedures on how public officials should respond to citizen requests for documents vested with public interest that a Freedom of Information Act should have offered.

In fact, just a few weeks before President Aquino delivered his second State of the Nation Address in which FOI was among the most striking omissions, the World Bank had weighed in on the issue that civil-society organizations and some of Aquino’s allies deem of utmost importance for good governance.

The Bank last month put forth in a 349-page “Philippines Discussion Notes: Challenges and Options for 2010 and Beyond” a vigorous recommendation for Aquino to see after the passage of the FOI Act if he so wishes to achieve “inclusive growth,” as well as stamp out corruption and poverty in the land.

Big challenges

The document produced by the Philippines Country Team, World Bank and The International Finance Corporation East Asia and Pacific Department, noted that the Aquino administration “faces significant opportunities as well as considerable challenges: an opportunity for new policy directions and new coalitions to push the development agenda forward with renewed vigor, but a need to overcome the inertial forces that slow down decision making and program implementation during a transition.”

The authors said the document aims “to support the creation of a shared focus among government, civil society, business groups, and development partners on the key elements of a long-term development strategy focused on inclusive growth.”

“Deliberately selective in their coverage, the Notes offer sectoral and thematic analyses to identify key challenges, and recommend a prioritized set of actions for consideration by the new government” yet also “draws on extensive international experience and worldwide best practices, as well as past experience with what works well in the Philippines and what does not,” the authors said.

They then pointed out that in the Philippines, “breaking down the hold that vested interests have over governance requires action on multiple fronts.”

Strong signal

The authors argued: “The Administration could contribute significantly to governance reform by putting up for legislative approval a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, as neighboring countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and India have done over the last decade. In addition to being an integral part of an open governance system, the Act would also send a strong signal that the government is committed to transparency.”

Nonetheless, even before the law is passed, the World Bank document said, “the President could immediately ensure the highest standards of public disclosure in the Executive branch of government through an Executive Order.”

Aside from stressing the need for the FOI Act to be passed, the Bank also exhorted Aquino to “select a strategic agency widely perceived to be corrupt and launch a comprehensive reform plan” to provide “a credible, though not necessarily easy, starting point for a government’s anti-corruption campaign.”
Obama project

Interestingly, despite its reticence to state clearly its position on the FOI bill, Malacañang has unfurled its efforts to promote greater transparency on the world stage.
Since mid-2010, the Aquino administration, represented by Budget and Management Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad, has signed on to and, in fact, now sits on the steering committee of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a multilateral, eight-country initiative launched by US President Barack Obama.

Obama’s project supposedly aims “to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.”

Under the OGP, the signatory states have committed to produce results along four benchmarks – disclosure of budget documents, disclosure of asset records of public officials, passage of an FOI Act, and engagement between government and civil-society groups.

By the admission of some Cabinet members themselves, the Aquino government may claim to have achieved some progress on the first two OGP benchmarks; on the last two, little or no progress at all.

This has prompted the Bantay FOI! Sulong FOI! network of 157 civil society groups and individuals to remark: “Malacañang must understand: Its desire to assume an honored place on the world stage as one of the leading lights of transparency in the world will not fly, unless it commits to the immediate passage of the FOI Act in the Philippines.”

Practical tips

In the meantime, the seven college student interns who helped conduct PCIJ’s audit of transparency regimes in Metro Manila have drawn up some practical tips for those who may want to access information from LGUs in the absence of an FOI law:

• Put your request in writing. Most local governments require requests for information be put in writing. Many also want the request to contain the name of the person or agency making the request, as well as the purpose for the request. The City of Navotas, for instance, even has a memorandum that explicitly asks for these.
• Verify beforehand which department would be handling your specific request. Otherwise, one may well be passed from office to another, and then from one personnel to another. To save time and spare one of fits of frustration, check the LGU’s website first to see which office or official would be best to handle the request, or call or visit the LGU’s information office before writing and submitting your request letter.
• Note the name and position of the staff member who received the request. Misplaced letters and sudden attack of amnesia abound in LGUs when follow-ups are made regarding requests for information. To avoid being passed around from one staff member to another, one should record right away the name of the personnel who received the request and, if possible, that person’s contact number. It may also be wise to do this in his or her presence, with other staff members as witnesses.
• Check beforehand for dress codes, as well as specific protocols and procedures. Such information is usually available on the LGU’s website. One can also call the LGU prior to submitting the letter of request. Some LGUs do have uniform procedures and processes. Parañaque, for example, requires that all letters of request be addressed to the mayor first for approval. In Marikina, guards bar those in shorts and/or slippers from entering its city hall.
• Be aware of the time limit imposed by law on LGUs to comply with requests for information. Remind LGU personnel as well of such deadlines since they may not be aware of it themselves. Under the law, LGUs are given10 working days to act on requests for Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) and 15 working days to act on requests for all other types of documents.
• Do follow-up calls. This will not only alert LGU personnel of your continued interest in your request, but will also remind them constantly of the need for them to act on it. If there is some delay, ask the reason for it; it may well be that the next step requires another letter to another office. Always ask the name of the staff handling the call, so that there is a “personnel trail” established while you track the progress of your request.

Once the documents are provided, double check if these contain all the information requested. Just because an LGU hands over a hefty volume of paper does not mean those data sets have all that you asked for. Go over the documents before leaving the city or town offices. If there is any information lacking, ask why. It could well be that another office is responsible for a particular piece of data that had been part of your request.

• An incomplete response calls for a follow-up letter. Should there be no response within the period set by law, submit a follow-up letter reminding the LGU of your request – as well as the LGU’s duty to act on it within the legal deadline. (After receiving such a follow-up letter from PCIJ interns, the Office of the Mayor of Muntinlupa called within the day to say that the information could be had from the City Planning and Development Office.)
• Be nice and keep your cool. It may be the LGU’s duty to serve the public, but any transaction is easier to accomplish when the atmosphere is kept pleasant. For sure, a smiling citizen’s request is more likely to be processed quickly while a demand that comes with a snarl is bound to be treated with contempt and left unattended as a result.

– With additional research by Anne Jeanette O. Priela, Krystal Kay S. Jimena, David Faustino T. de Castro, Essen Mei M. Miguel, Henor G. Gotis, Eric H. Rivera, and Stephanie Directo, PCIJ, July 2011

Image courtesy of illuminati-news.com

Opaque LGUs the norm in NCR

By The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

First of Two Parts

(Second Part is Accessing information tough task in the metro )

POLITICS and government, business and finance, education and culture. In all these and more, the national capital region, Metro Manila, is supposed to lead the rest of the nation. Here, bureaucrats and politicians thrive, mostly schooled and steeled in the art of governance and advisedly, the liberal ramparts of transparency and accountability.

It seems fair for citizens to expect that in Metro Manila, more than anywhere else in the Philippines, the people’s right to know and to access official information and documents would be respected. But that could well be plain wishful thinking for now.

Indeed, while President Benigno ‘Noynoy’ C. Aquino III has once more failed to reiterate a commitment to freedom of information (FOI) in his latest State of the Nation Address, the results of a recent survey by the PCIJ of access to information practices in the 16 cities and sole town of Metro Manila show that majority of the local officials and employees in these Metro Manila local government units (LGUs) continue to linger in the dark ages of closed, opaque government.

Most of the LGUs, in fact, took their sweet time in responding to requests for specific documents, unmindful of deadlines for action set in law. And if they did act at all, they disclosed only some, not all, the documents requested. The city of Caloocan even recorded net zero action, failing to take full action on any of the requests up until the end of the audit. This was even though that city’s officials had approved, orally and in writing, at least a third of the PCIJ’s requests.

Documents for citizens

Beyond simply tracking the transparency regimes obtaining in NCR, the PCIJ audit purposely zeroed in on documents with great and grave impact on the welfare of the citizens. From April to June 2011, the Center deployed seven college student interns who filed requests for six major types of documents, including the asset disclosure records of the LGU officials, as well as the budget and development plans of the LGU. The audit also focused on documents pertaining to education, health, public safety, civil registry and property, and doing business.

Surprisingly, however, the most basic documents regularly produced by LGUs proved the most difficult to get. For instance, among the 17 Metro Manila LGUs, only Makati gave complete documents on education, while a mere four – Quezon City, Parañaque, Navotas, and the San Juan Health Department Unit 1 – provided complete documents on health.

On average, only a fourth of the 17 LGUs provided their development and investment plans, and copies of the proposed and enacted budgets. The rest took no action.

Still, of all the documents requested by the PCIJ, the statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALNs) were easily the most tightly guarded and thus, the hardest to obtain. In the mold and manner of national politicians, the local politicians of Metro Manila apparently hold their asset disclosure records close to their chests.

Only two cities – Marikina and Makati – willingly shared the SALNs of all their local officials. Quezon City and Navotas, meanwhile, gave the SALNs of their respective mayor and vice mayor, but came up short when it came to those of their councilors. San Juan released its vice mayor’s SALN, but not its chief executive’s; it also gave incomplete asset records of its councilors. In the rest of the LGUs, the SALNs remain sub rosa or kept under lock and key by local officials who insist on their confidentiality, in apparent indifference to, or ignorance of, the law.

Most LGUs also required requestors to secure the mayor’s approval before all the requests could be granted. This caused bureaucratic delays and most probably is a major barrier to accessing documents in the NCR.

Least opaque

In the PCIJ audit, not one of the LGUs provided all the requested information. Even Quezon City, which came out as the friendliest to access to information requests, took full action (within the 15 working days’ deadline in law for all the documents requested) on only 75 percent of all requests filed by PCIJ.

Next came Marikina, which scored 57 percent, while Pasay, Parañaque, Navotas, and Makati all granted about half of all of PCIJ’s requests. Ten other LGUs (Las Piñas, Pasig, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Taguig, Valenzuela, San Juan, Malabon, Manila, and Pateros) acted only on 12.5 to 37.5 percent of all requests filed.

On average, the LGU offices that gave documents took about 10 days to do so. But the Business Permits and Licensing Office (BPLO) of Las Piñas stood out by taking only a day to respond and provide complete documents related to doing business in the city.

To do the audit, the PCIJ interns personally filed simultaneous request letters for documents with the 17 LGUs, monitored all related follow-up activities (request letters sent, phone calls and field visits made to the LGU office), and logged all activity details (name and position of responding personnel and officials, speed and nature of action or referrals made; and the type or nature of documents given or withheld).

In addition, the enrolled deadlines set in law for government agencies to act on such requests – 10 working days to act on requests for SALNs and 15 working days to act on requests for all other types of documents – were used as reference for rating the performance of the various LGUs in this audit.

The audit stretched across a two-month period – one month for fieldwork and data gathering, and another for follow-up activities and data collation. In all, the PCIJ interns filed with the 17 LGUs a combined total of 135 request letters, made 437 phone calls, and received 266 referrals for many requests were tossed around two or more offices in the same LGUs.

The requests were filed with the LGU departments and units that are the custodians of the documents, including the Office of the Mayor, the Health Department, the Public Order and Safety Department, the Business Permit and Licensing Office, and the Civil Registry Department.

Public interest

The documents requested are clearly imbued with public interest because they enroll information and data that should benefit public weal and welfare:

• For education, the PCIJ asked for two sets of data: statistics or the number of schools and teachers in each LGU, as well as on plans and projects to construct new school buildings, hire new teachers, and acquire new learning materials and copies of contracts.

• For health, the PCIJ requested information on the actual expenses the LGUs spend on medicines and the volume of medicines distributed per barangay; number of hospitals and medical personnel; and projects undertaken by the health department.

• For public safety, the PCIJ sought data on the number of police officers and other public order personnel, how the police coordinate with barangay officials, how the police or barangay respond to cases, protocols on public-order incidents, and the number and the amount LGUs spend to build and maintain lampposts.

• For civil registry and property, the PCIJ asked about the types of civil registry and property documents, how to obtain these documents, fees and timetable involved in obtaining documents.

• For doing business, the PCIJ requested details on the documentary requirements, request and application process, LGU departments in charge, number of processing days, and fees involved. In addition, the PCIJ sought information on how to locate records of a business establishment, which office tracks records of registered and non-registered businesses in the LGU, and the benefits of registering a business.

• For other basic, premise data on the LGU and its officials, the PCIJ requested five documents: the SALN and personal data sheet (PDS) of the mayor, vice mayor and councilors; local development plan; local investment plan; proposed budget; and enacted budget.

How and why the citizens must be entitled to these documents, and could benefit from them, are matters affirmed in law and validated by the contents of the documents themselves.

The Local Government Code of 1991 mandates each LGU to prepare a local development plan and a public investment program, which would outline a city or a municipality’s development and budget priorities and serve as basis of its programs and projects for the year.

Useful details

These documents would significantly help citizens to understand the local government’s plans for the city and the barangays and how it intends to spend public resources. These documents would clearly enable citizen participation in policymaking and governance.

For instance, the 2011 Annual Investment Program (AIP) provided by Quezon City states that the city’s development priorities are disaster-risk mitigation, environment management, socio-economic services to empower the poor, tourism development, and effective city management.

To achieve these plans, Quezon City’s AIP outlines its budget allocation for each program, project, and activity, as well as the office or agency assigned to implement each sector.

For 2011, Quezon City has allocated P15.75 million for maternal health care for pregnant and post-partum mothers, and routine care for newborn infants. Residents, especially mothers and expectant mothers who do not have enough funds to avail themselves of private health care services, would find this information useful.

Quezon City has also allotted P2.49 million to provide services to physically, mentally, and socially disabled persons 0 to 60 years of age in order to enhance or develop their capabilities for self-reliance and productivity. Families with a disabled member may then inquire about this program and seek assistance from Quezon City’s Social Services Development Department.

In the meantime, citizens may find information pertaining to education useful so that they themselves can assess and audit education projects of their LGUs.

Makati, which was the only LGU that provided complete documents on education services, gave copies of the contracts that the city government signed with contractors to build new school buildings and to improve or maintain existing ones.

The contracts offered details on the amount of the project, project scope and timetable, and the duties and responsibilities of the contractor. With these data on hand, parents of students in a school may actually be able to check if the project had been fully implemented.

And then there are the SALNs, which are considered to be key in monitoring the wealth of public officials and in discouraging corruption. Yet most Metro Manila LGUs found reason to keep SALNs of certain officials away from the public eye.

The officials of Malabon’s Human Resource Department, for one, insisted that SALNs are “confidential” documents. Navotas, for its part, was quick to approve the release of the SALN of the mayor, but uncertainties on the part of the councilors resulted in their failure to hand over their SALNs.

Pasay was as problematic in the release of the SALNs and personal data sheets of its senior officials supposedly because the request letter had been misplaced.

In Pateros, the head of the Municipal Personnel Office said all 14 town councilors would have to unanimously agree first before any of their SALNs could be released to the PCIJ. Some councilors agreed, while the others refused. Because the personnel officer has imposed an all-or-nothing rule, not a single SALN of Pateros’s local executives was released.

(By contrast, Marikina, which ranked second to Quezon City as the most transparent city in NCR, provided the SALNs of its local executives within just five days from receipt of the PCIJ request.)

Most opaque

The four least transparent cities (Malabon, Manila, Pateros, and Caloocan) actually shared one thing in common: Their personnel showed a common tendency to refer requestors to other LGU departments within the same city halls, needlessly prolonging the process of obtaining documents.

In quite a few cases, too, many LGU personnel seemed totally clueless about their obligations in the Constitution and in Republic Act No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) to be transparent in all their actions involving use of public funds, and in handling documents vested with public interest.

In Caloocan – the least transparent among the Metro Manila LGUs — only the police department and the civil registry office responded to the requests within the 15-day deadline set in law. All the other agencies of Caloocan either ignored or denied the other requests.

Unfortunately, even the offices there that promised to release documents, including those on education and health services, and those pertaining to doing business in the city, have yet to do so as of this writing. The police department in particular said it had misplaced the PCIJ’s request letter, causing interminable delays.

In Pateros, NCR’s lone municipality, the PCIJ filed requests with eight various departments. The town’s civil servants generally had an accommodating demeanor, but this failed to compensate for the insufficient documents they eventually released. Four offices took action but only one gave a complete set of documents requested. Pateros ended up being the second least transparent LGU in NCR.

Manila, NCR’s oldest and premier city, is the third least transparent. While its officials approved action on 57 percent of the PCIJ’s requests, they actually gave complete documents on only 14 percent of all requests filed.

The PCIJ sent request letters to seven offices of Manila City Hall but only four responded within the 15-day deadline set in law – the Mayor’s Office (SALNs), the business department, the City Civil Registry, and the assessor’s department. Manila’s police and health departments have yet to respond to the PCIJ’s requests, while the mayor’s office has yet to act on a separate request for data on education services.

Malabon, the fourth least transparent city, actually approved up to 83.33 percent of the PCIJ’s requests within four to 11 days. But it released the complete documents requested for only 16.67 percent of the requests, within the lawful deadline.

Malabon and Pateros cited the “confidentiality” status of certain documents for refusing the requests.

Among those that performed better than the bottom dwellers, the need for the mayor’s go-signal before certain documents are released was revealed to be a major block for those seeking access to public data. In Parañaque City, Mayor Florencio Bernabe Jr. had even issued a memorandum that in effect gave him sole power to approve all requests for information. The memo was supposedly based on a provision in R.A. No. 6713, which states that public offices are given the discretion not to disclose any information on the grounds of public safety and “undue advantage.” Out of the 10 requests that the PCIJ filed, only five were granted within 15 working days.

Politics & revenues

The practice in Parañaque prevails as well in Taguig, Pasay, Las Piñas, Mandaluyong, and Navotas even as no written memorandum requiring the mayor’s approval has been issued.

In Pasig, basic documents and those pertaining to education services could not be released simply because during the month-long data gathering for this audit, Mayor Bobby Eusebio was often out of the office. His deputies said there was no definite schedule when he would report for work.

Political rivalry also got in the way of accessing documents in Taguig. Majority of the requests were denied there supposedly because the documents had to be kept “confidential” on account of an ongoing court case between Mayor Laarni Cayetano and her losing rival in the May 2010 elections, retired Supreme Court justice Dante Tinga.

Only the documents from Taguig’s BPLO, the Assessor’s Office, and the City Health Department were provided. Requests filed with the Mayor’s Office, the Public Safety and Order Office (POSO), and the City Budget Office were not granted within the 15-working day deadline set in law.

Documents pertaining to civil registry records and on doing business in Metro Manila were the easiest to secure across the metropolis. In fact, all 17 LGUs provided information on various civil registry and property documents, as well as the procedures, fees, and number of days it would take them to process requests.

As for doing business, 14 of the 17 LGUs gave information on the documentary requirements, the process for applying for business permits and registering business establishments, and the fees involved. In many cases, the data were enrolled in brochures and pamphlets published by the LGUs.

These two offices (Civil Registry and BPLO) conduct regular transactions with citizens every day; releasing documents thus seems almost routinary to them. In addition, these transactions are triggers of revenues (processing and permit fees) and take on the nature of business processes beneficial to the LGUs. - With research and reporting by Karol Anne M. Ilagan, Anne Jeanette O. Priela, Krystal Kay S. Jimena, David Faustino T. de Castro, Essen Mei M. Miguel, Henor G. Gotis, Eric H. Rivera, Stephanie Directo, and Jessa Mae B. Jarilla, PCIJ, July 2011.

————————-

SIDEBAR

Streetlights in the dark

EVEN those who don’t have ungodly workhours that have them walking the streets at night may want to know more details about the lampposts that light up their cities.

By knowing where these streetlights have been built, residents and most especially commuters may actually locate the lampposts, and propose to their LGUs where else in the city more should be installed. Or, they can report to their LGUs where lampposts need repair, consume energy 24/7, or even, where there have just a swarm of lampposts.

The value or lack of value in LGU spending on lampposts is a matter that citizens may also compare, if they are so armed with data on the unit cost of these lampposts.

For instance, of the six cities that provided documents regarding their streetlights as part of the PCIJ audit, Makati turned out to have the biggest number of lampposts at 4,803 that the city said were constructed from 2004 to 2010. Malabon comes in second with 2,929, and then Quezon City with 1,660, Mandaluyong with 1,616, and San Juan, 921.

While specifications were not provided, the price variance for the lampposts that various LGUs install in NCR is an interesting matter. Documents showed that in Malabon, each lamppost costs P31,486.80 while in San Juan, each unit costs P49,621.90.

In Makati, the cost of a lamppost ranges approximately from P240,000 to P280,000. This amount, according to Makati City Engineer Nelson R. Morales, includes the following: excavation/restoration and other civil works, wirings and conduits, illuminated street names, programmable lighting controller, and MERALCO service connection. Morales also noted that the “cost varies depending on additional problems that might be encountered (on) site” such as “drainage diversion, unavailability of Secondary Distribution Facilities, and others…”

How much LGUs pay in public funds to maintain the lampposts are curious details, too. Quezon City spends P34.85 million per month on average, or more than a million pesos a day, on the power consumption of its lampposts. Its projected power consumption for 2011, as of March, 14, 2011, is a hefty P418.20 million. And of this amount, the projected power bill for so-called ornamental lampposts account for 41 percent, or P171.31 million. – With research by Anne Jeanette O. Priela, Krystal Kay S. Jimena, David Faustino T. de Castro, Essen Mei M. Miguel, Henor G. Gotis, Eric H. Rivera, and Stephanie Directo, PCIJ, July 2011.

PCIJ Data Tables. Access to Information in Metro Manila, July 2011

While fluctuations in TV ratings may suggest viewers are now switching channels — from watching newscasts to watching a variety/game show, it is still early to conclude that the viewing habit of Filipino households has already changed.

TV5′s bold move to introduce a variety show in an early evening time slot (which is usually ruled by primetime news programs) may be considered a timely and wise strategy for a network trying to show its metal.

“TV5 dares to change viewing habit”

It shall be noted that since the re-opening of different forms of mass media in 1980′s, majority of evening viewers has been used to open television sets to watch prime-time news — at that time, ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol was lording the ratings.

It was able to set the standard on the “magnetic” approach to tackle news regardless of its veracity and kind.

After TV Patrol’s decades of existence, many news programs from GMA7 and ABC5 (now TV 5) have come and gone. It was only in 2004 that GMA 7 has finally drawn its flagship news program (24 Oras) to decrease ratings gap with TV Patrol.

At that time, there were only two recognized “Giants” namely, ABS-CBN 2 and GMA 7.

Since the habit of watching news programs remained unchallenged for a long period of time, no TV network dared to launch a show in an early evening time slot with a completely different genre, aside from news.

Until ABC5 repackaged itself as TV5, making the roster of mainstream evening news shaken.

TV5 dares to reinvent primetime experience and attempts to reverse viewers’ habit of watching news to watching entertainment.

“Entertainment, instead of news”

Boldly speaking, Willie Revillame’s show satisfies the “wants” of typical households, tired of dealing with restrictions imposed by their material conditions.

A typical member of a household, who wants to take a break from the reality manifested in TV news,may prefer to watch a game show than a news program. Likewise, he or she who wants to temporarily disengage from a stressful day, may prefer to do the same.

Perhaps so, as some consider news programs as “visual reminders” of many displeasing things surrounding the society.

HOWEVER, the question remains: do you think this kind of show (regardless of network producer) communicates and addresses the real “NEEDS” of the people?

“Culture of escapism”

People’s need is to take hold of the Truth and ‘relevant’ information to enable them fulfill their citizen-critic duties, as members of a ‘supposed-democratic’ society.

A show like Willing-Willie/WilTime BigTime or any variety show for that matter, cannot give the same dose of effects as news programs can possibly contribute.

We are not saying though, that news programs completely fulfill the need of the people as they are also subject to various flaws concerning reputation, credibility and credence as information-gatherers, news providers and watchdogs, respectively.

The point is, news programs are more inclined to providing the needs, not the wants. News programs, compared to variety/game shows are closer to the aim of having an information-rich and a Truth-driven society.

People have already taken the initial steps and it certainly poses a problematic future if they take huge step backwards and completely change their habit of watching news.

The many flaws of today’s mainstream journalism may be viewed as a huge problem in the realm itself. Shortcomings of which, may even justify people’s choice not to watch newscasts anymore. Even the idea of having an information-rich, Truth-driven society may still be debatable.

HOWEVER, thinking the wild possible diversion of Filipino habit from watching news to plain entertainment in the future is a greater social concern to mull over compared to the problems surrounding the media.

This may suggest that people are no longer interested, (1) to know relevant issues affecting them, (2) to take hold of the Truth and information, and (3)to practice their real democratic functions as citizens.

Escapism is never a solution to problems.

“An insidious move”

Taking it from the lens of a business mogul, we can say that TV5′s brave move to challenge the timeslot dominated by news programs was indeed a wise corporate decision.

ABS-CBN and GMA are already taking this situation as a challenge to further their affinities to viewers.

Let us see how ABS-CBN and GMA respond to this, if the trend goes good.

Will they develop new shows to compete a variety show — and finally change their respective news programs’ time slots?

When this happens, is it safe to conclude that TV5 has been victorious in setting a new historic television trend — where early evening is no longer about the headlines?

The move is quite insidious, as it intends to take advantage of the fact that people no longer “want” to hear anything bad as inevitably given by news programs.

The move is treacherous as it takes hold of viewership by means of entertainment. It is able to influence people’s consciousness by making a strategy out of their weaknesses.

As people look for ways to withdraw themselves from the unfortunate traces of reality seen via TV news, TV5 takes the opportunity to move.

“Developmental journalism”

This is a long discussion between what people need and what people want.

But if mainstream TV news will work hard to make people realize how important it is to be aware of and to take hold of “relevant” information surrounding them, then they may still have a chance to resurrect their viewers.

Relevant information are those, which are NEEDED by the people to exercise their citizen-critic duties.

The mainstream TV news shall begin at improving their “developmental” efforts to news and public affairs.

Reporting a story is different from informing the people. By way of informing the people, journalists take commitment not only to report the facts and make people understand complex issues, but also to present sound options and/or logical alternatives, without inciting personal judgment.

This is completely different from merely telling a story as it answers the who, what, where, when, how and why.

Presenting the problem coupled with proposed actions, alternatives or options make a story “developmental” in approach. It goes beyond the simple airing of concerns and grievances, as it becomes part of the solution.

There was a time in Philippine TV history when Ernie Baron was considered the only face of weather news and trivia. During those unchallenged years, Ernie Baron was able to establish himself as someone who could really do the chores of a meteorologist and the commitment to be the ‘walking encyclopedia.’

Some are positive nobody can ever replace the mileage an Ernie Baron has created. But there are also others who say, KIm Atienza is also a force to consider, since he can offer not only weather and trivial literature. He possesses the caliber of a Steve Irwin via his award-winning science show, Matanglawin and interestingly, has the skill-set needed to reporting traffic news via TV Patrol. (Not to mention his hosting duties for Showtime)

One of the advantages of TV Patrol is its undying segment on weather. For the past two decades since TV Patrol’s inception, changes were made and drastic program reformats were introduced. Some segments were dissolved to make way for the new ones, but the segment on weather stays. A significant turning point in what we may refer to as “the history of weather and trivia reporting” was the transfer of duties from Ernie Baron to Kim Atienza.

Ernie Baron expressed his intention to bequeath his throne as ABS-CBN’s resident weatherman to Kim Atienza. It was at these days when Kim Atienza started changing his personality from a politician to a newsman — from Congressman Kim Atienza to Kuya Kim. Although we can say that in a company as big as ABS-CBN, nobody is indispensable, people have witnessed the constant need for a person to report on weather news.

“Nung binakante niya ‘yon at binasbasan niya ako, malaki ang pasasalamat ko. Walang makakatumbas kay Ka Ernie Baron,” said Kim Atienza admitting no one can replace Ernie Baron. (published March 2009, B. Francisco)

The significance of having a weather segment in a TV newscast was undisguisedly felt by its rivals, GMA7 and later, TV5. To come up with a segment on weather, GMA7 has to get the service of a forecaster from PAGASA while TV5′s Aksyon has likewise followed the trend.

Back then, it was harder for Ernie Baron to stand on a chroma pretending to see the virtual weather map of the Philippine Islands while giving the weather news, as compared to the technology TV newscasts are enjoying today.

TV newscasts shall continue including weather news — not on the basis of competition, but simply on the idea that this type of news is a need, not just an accessory to a newscast.

In view of today’s dramatic change in the environment, it is now a tall order to make it a crusade, if not a corporate social responsibility for giant networks to intensify weather reporting. And while reporting may include scientific terms, it is a newsman’s duty to make even the tiniest piece of detail comprehensible, as much as possible.

(Open Letter)

02 May 2011
His Excellency
BENIGNO S. AQUINO III
President of the Philippines
Malacañan Palace
Manila

Subject: Request for meeting on the Freedom of Information Bill

Dear Mr. President:

We are members of the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition, a network of about 150 organizations and individuals from various social sectors and civil-society groups, which have long been campaigning for the passage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

We count among our ranks public-interest groups; print, broadcast and online journalists; environmental-protection advocates; farmers and farmers’ support groups; women’s organizations; labor unions from the private and public sectors; migrant workers; businessmen; lawyers; academics; student and youth organizations, and concerned individuals.

Three times already since you were elected President nearly 12 months ago, we had written you letters of appeal so you may please support, endorse, and help assure the passage of the FOI Act.

On May 26, 2010 or two weeks after elections when it was clear that the people had vested you with firm and broad mandate to serve as President, we wrote to request you to lend a decisive voice to convince the House of Representatives of the 14th Congress to act on the bicameral conference report on the FOI bill.

The House of Representatives failed us supposedly because there was no quorum on their last session day, even as we counted and our media colleagues had documented the contrary. Suffice it to say that the House misled us. It was not only a matter of spurning our 14-year advocacy; more gravely, it was a matter of failing their constitutional duty to pass the FOI Act. This much is clear under the 1987 Constitution written and ratified under the watch of President Corazon Aquino, which fully guarantees the right of the people to access information and documents in the custody of government officials and agencies, as well as prescribes the state policies of transparency and accountability.

Then again on July 20, 2010 we wrote you to appeal for the inclusion of the FOI bill among the legislative measures on your priority list in the debut state-of-the-nation address that you were to deliver days later.

Finally on February 2, 2011, we wrote a third time to beseech you to enroll the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in your Priority Measures for consideration by the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council or LEDAC.

Three times we have written and three times, too, we have failed to receive substantial positive feedback from you or your deputies regarding our appeal.

Please rest assured, Mr, President, that we continue to keep faith in your appreciation of the value of an FOI Act in promoting good governance, transparency, accountability, and responsive delivery of public services. These are precisely the bedrock principles – and promises – on which you have built your “Social Contract with the Filipino People,” and for which you have won the adulation, respect and vote of our people. We also understand full well that your administration needs and deserves adequate time to study the details of the bill and assess it against a number of concerns that you and some of your deputies have publicly raised.

At the same time, please understand, Mr. President, that absent positive developments, or even public statements, on how your administration intends and wishes to help enact the FOI Act – we are given no reason to remain hopeful. With all due respect, Mr. President, during your first 10 months in office the FOI bill has achieved no breakthroughs. And this is despite a long, congenial, and substantial meeting that we had months ago in Malacañan where the three Cabinet secretaries of your Communications Group assured us of their support for the FOI bill.

The first regular session of the 15th Congress is nearing its end, and very soon, the jockeying for positions for the 2013 elections will be upon us. Yet the FOI bill remains stalled in the respective committees on public information of the Senate and House of Representatives. Curiously, even the majority coalition in the House that is now led by your Liberal Party allies could not make the FOI bill move in the 15th Congress with as much resolve as they had demonstrated in the 14th Congress.

We believe that a key reason for the lack of progress on the FOI bill in Congress is the perceived lack of decisive support for it from the Executive branch, in particular, from the President. As you have risen from the ranks of our lawmakers, we have no doubt that you fully understand our concerns and apprehensions.

Pardon us, Mr. President, but we could not help but think that all too suddenly, save for a few consistent voices in Congress, the FOI bill has become an orphaned cause in government, a bill without fathers, mothers, friends, advocates, and champions under your administration.

We would like to perish this thought promptly and for good. We know that a far better and more joyful idea that should consume us is to believe that with you and under your leadership, we could still hope that very soon our nation will finally have an FOI law.

May we take this opportunity to request, with all due considerations for your very busy schedule, a meeting with Your Excellency for a delegation from the Right to Know. Right Now! Coalition, at the soonest and most convenient time possible.

Perhaps you may at least give us a chance to discuss with you how the FOI bill can be refined to achieve a careful and reasonable balance between the people’s right to access information and the concerns that you may have, so that it may merit your support and consequently advanced effectively in the legislative process.

We will follow up our request for a meeting with you with your appropriate staff personnel or deputies.

Thank you very much for your kind attention.

Very truly yours,

Right to Know. Right Now!
Coalition

SIGNATORIES:

Right to Know Right Now-Letter to Pres Aquino – Meet Request – 2 May 201 (1)

By Jaemark Tordecilla
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Last of Two Parts

(Continuation from Part 1 – Access to information under PNoy : Some open spaces, many close

WHEN THE 15th Congress opened last June, there seemed to be renewed energy toward passing the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which had floundered in the legislature’s previous incarnation, just when transparency advocates had thought it was about to be ratified.

In the House of Representatives, Quezon representative Lorenzo ‘Erin’ Tañada III, a staunch FOI advocate and a member of the Liberal Party, convened a technical working group to jumpstart the process.  At the other end of the metropolis, the Senate committee on public information, chaired by Senator Gregorio Honasan, held a hearing to discuss the bill.

But the momentum to pass the measure has since fizzled and the Aquino administration’s flip-flop on the bill appears to be the main cause of the lack of legislative activity on it.

That flip-flop, in turn, apparently comes from wariness, if not fear, from within Malacañang that an FOI law would imperil the privacy of government officials and perhaps even put national security at risk.

This is even as Palace officials reiterate that the Aquino administration remains committed to transparency and good governance.

“Transparency doesn’t even require an FOI bill,” says Manuel L. Quezon III, Undersecretary of Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning. “Generally, (transparency means) are you willing to accommodate the questions that are brought by reporters or researchers, are you more forthcoming with your budget data, are you more liberal in terms of what sort are non-controversial items that can be immediately put online.”

As the Liberal Party standard bearer in the 2010 elections, then Senator Benigno Simeon ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III had promised that the FOI bill would be among his administration’s legislative priorities.  He had also said that having a “force of law” was necessary for transparency in government to really take place.

‘Unreasonable requests’

Five months after Aquino took his oath as president, Secretary Herminio Coloma of the Presidential Communications Operations Office released a statement saying that the Malacañang had reservations about making the measure a priority, because government operations may be hampered by unreasonable requests for information.

By last February, despite appeals of FOI advocates, the bill was nowhere on the list of priority measures submitted by the Palace for the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC).

Today lawyer Nepomuceno Malaluan, spokesman of the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition of over 160 civil society groups, says, “While Congress has made initial advances at the committee level, we have seen that there has been a very visible slowing down of the legislative process after the Malacañang held back from including FOI among its list of priorities.”

Rough sailing

Senator Antonio Trillanes IV himself counts the bill among his legislative priorities, but concedes that it might face rough sailing even in the Senate without the Palace’s certification.

“This bill, no matter how important this is, will have to take a backseat and we will take the cue from the president,” he says. “(But) I’m going to give the president the leeway he needs in order to govern this country.  If he feels, let’s say, national security or poverty alleviation will be the priority over transparency then I’m willing to give him that.  “

Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda, meanwhile, has justified the exclusion by saying that Malacañang needed more time to study the FOI measure. Lacierda says that an “inter-agency committee” would be organized to look into the Palace’s concerns.

But the Palace hasn’t said anything much about the matter after that, leaving FOI advocates seriously worried.  “We know that every day that the process does not move diminishes the opportunity to have the bill passed,” says Malaluan

“Our experience in the last Congress is that as you approach the third year of the three-year term of Congress, it becomes more difficult to get the bill passed,” he said.

To be sure, there are laudable efforts by the administration to improve transparency and openness when it comes to public information. Secretary Jesse Robredo of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) oversees one of the most ambitious efforts of the Aquino administration to improve transparency in government: requiring full disclosure of all local government units (LGUs) of financial information.

12 documents

“For the LGUs,” says Robredo, “we (require the disclosure) of 12 documents, including the use of the economic development fund, procurement and budget statements, and even a document showing all the obligations of the LGUs as far as borrowings and amortizations is concerned. Last year, it was an initial effort; I think compliance was between 25 to 30 percent.”

Robredo says this kind of openness and transparency provides benefits to the citizens, both directly and indirectly.

“Let’s say, for instance, I publish a notice of bidding – this will serve as a benchmark to suppliers if they are interested in engaging with the LGU,” he says. “If I’m a supplier, I now know the benchmark of the cost in order supply material or equipment. Now the other constituents will be watchdogs; if it is overpriced, then they will certainly know that it is overpriced. So what happens now is that you will have people with varied interest in the information provided, but this varied interest would ultimately (serve) the interest of the public.”

In 2010, the DILG issued a memorandum circular to encourage local governments to disclose these financial documents. This year, however, there is a provision in the General Appropriations Act that would actually require the local units to disclose the documents, and Robredo says that his department is willing to pursue legal sanctions against those who would refuse to comply.

Law would help

“I certainly think that the threat of legal action will significantly improve compliance,” he says. “In time, probably, there is no need for it. But inasmuch as this is the first step from the kind of system we had before, wherein at any given point in their term, any local official can get away with not disclosing how he or she had spent (public) money. So it might be good if, at least, it will be backed up by legal sanctions if they do not comply.”

In fact, having an FOI law in such a situation would be ideal. Because the proposed FOI act contains a provision of penalty for non-compliance, it would strengthen campaigns, such as the DILG’s, to improve transparency in government agencies. It would also define processes that would prevent government agencies from putting up arbitrary barriers involving the disclosure of public documents.

“There are a number of substantive and procedural gaps that can only be addressed by legislation,” says Malaluan. “One procedural gap is an absence of a uniform procedure for accessing in formation, so [requests] are handled differently across government agencies.”

Cause of delay

Because of a lack of legislation, the government gets to determine what can be covered and not covered by the Constitution’s mandate of the right to information. “There’s a big amount of discretion that will be remedied by having a clear list of exceptions under this bill,” Malaluan says.

These exceptions are among the concerns being raised by the Palace preventing it from certifying the FOI bill as urgent. Says Quezon: “In every administration, there is always the intelligence community, it is always the national security community, and the defense community, and of course, the diplomatic arms of the government that are the most concerned, being very specific and particular in terms of disclosure, of what can be disclosed and when.”

This, according to Quezon, has been the cause of the delay in formulating the official Malacañang stand on the bill.

“These are the things that get a little slow, because the lawyers are being involved and they have to hammer it out,” he says. “This is both for the protection of the public, in terms of it legitimate rights, as well as of the state, in terms of, you don’t want to imperil your national security order, military and police operations, on the basis of haphazard disclosures.”

Overstated worries

But Trillanes, a former military man, says such concerns might be overstated.

“I believe the (armed forces) in general would welcome this bill because in the end it will be to their benefit,” says the senator, who was among the leaders in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny that stemmed from allegations of military corruption.

“Once you get rid of the culture of corruption in the bureaucracy,” he says, “now we can be more efficient on our use of our public funds, and that will result to having more benefit for the welfare of the soldiers, better equipment, and that can help them in accomplishing their mission. But of course if you’re talking about operational security, how they would conduct their military operations, it will be part of the exceptions in the Freedom of Information Bill.”

“Many of the concerns have been addressed already in the bill,” Malaluan says. “For some of the concerns that we feel might have been overlooked in the past legislative process, we have expressed our openness to revisit some of these issues, we have submitted our petition papers, we have supported the study made by Rep. Tañada who was the technical working group committee chairman in the House of the Representatives addressing some of the concerns.”

Malaluan says that he and his fellow FOI advocates have remained open to a dialogue with the Palace. Undersecretary Quezon, for his part, says that Malacañang also wants to continue the conversation on the bill.

“The President directed at the start of this year that we engage in substantive discussions with freedom of information advocates and with those who have been proposing legislation in Congress,” he says.

In an interview with PCIJ, Quezon recalls with relish a meeting two months ago between the Communications Group and the FOI advocates. “As early as February,” he recounts, “we met with the freedom of information coalition people and we had a frank and open discussion, and I think a very good one. This led in turn to other discussions within the government so that we could hammer out our positions and areas of concerns that we had engaged in, in terms of the dialogue. “

Sunny picture?
To the Palace then, things are still looking sunny with the FOI bill. “It’s been moving quite well,” says Quezon. “There have been several meetings on this core. And the question will then become ‘What sort of engagement will the President have?’”

In Quezon’s book, the Palace precisely wants to reconnect with the advocates soon. “There has to be a final agreement,” he says. “We’ll be going back, for example, to the proponents of the Freedom of Information act having gotten our positions together and we’ll be engaging in a little more dialogue.

What the Palace needs is more time for more discussions, he says. “The objective here,” Quezon says, “is that once a general agreement is reached, it will enable speedier and smoother passage once all the parties have basically reached an understanding.”

The undersecretary, however, declines to say when Malacañang would be able to come out with a clear-cut position on the FOI bill that would address its concerns. He does note, though, that the process has “moved substantially forward.”

Unfortunately, with time slowly running out once again on the FOI bill, advocates say “moving substantially forward” just won’t cut it.

“We are really quite anxious and apprehensive that any further delay of the legislative process might jeopardize our ability to have this bill finally passed into law in the 15th Congress,” says Malaluan. “We believe that at this point the Aquino administration must really state where it stands on the bill so that the citizens will not be left hoping and hanging, giving them the benefit of the doubt for so long.  We believe that it’s about time that the Aquino administration already declares where it stands exactly on the passage of the Freedom of Information Act.”

Robredo says his principal is still committed to the passage of the FOI bill.

“I’m quite certain that, as a matter of principle, he would like transparency and accountability to be promoted,” he says. “I think it should be prioritized, I think this administration is prioritizing it. We just need to fine-tune it, so that once we say this is it, then we are ready.” – With reporting by Ed Lingao, Stephanie Directo, Krystal Jimena, and Essen Miguel, PCIJ, May 2011

SIDEBAR

The other side

TIME and getting thrown into the other side of the fence can change one’s perspectives somewhat.

Less than a year ago, Manuel L. Quezon III was a columnist and television analyst. Although he had worked earlier as a consultant for the presidential museum, there was no doubt where his heart lay when it came to the Freedom of Information Act.

In his column and blog, he cited quotes from an FOI advocate he had interviewed and fired broadsides against the leadership of the 14^th Congress for resorting to “little stunts” to scuttle the FOI bill.

These included, Quezon wrote in a Jun. 5, 2010 blog post, the switching off of microphones to deny FOI authors voice and volume at the session hall, “mysterious text message urging congressmen not to show up at the House to prevent a quorum… a verified memorandum from the Secretary-General of the House urging committee staff to pack the galleries in anticipation of a mobilization by supporters of the FOI,” and “the publication of the House agenda placing the FOI at the bottom of its order of business, instead of first in line as befits a priority measure.”

“As it turned out,” wrote Quezon, now undersecretary of Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning, “the grim expectations of the supporters of the FOI were fulfilled when the session was gaveled to a close when the quorum was questioned.” This took place on the last session day of the 14^th Congress, which was partial to Aquino’s predecessor, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

The FOI advocate, Quezon added, “suggested that the House leadership had second thoughts because of the Law of Unintended Consequences… where a seemingly harmless but fashionable legislative proposal ended up scuttled because its implications started to sink in.” In other words, according to Quezon, “it’s scorched-earth complexed with sandbagging.”

Then, there was no denying Quezon’s vigorous push for the FOI. He had so declared in an earlier blog on May 22, 2009, and insisted on bigger and deeper guarantees of access. He said good record-keeping by government agencies should that be a requirement, and that even “concepts like Executive Privilege” should be reviewed.

Quezon wrote: “I support a Freedom of Information Act but with the understanding that it may be very much a Dead Letter even if enacted. Its effectiveness will depend on an institutional awareness of the importance of record-keeping, and the safeguarding of official records – which brings up the problem that much of what is of public interest is not being recorded at all.”

“Minutes of official meetings, and institutional diaries and so forth,” he added, “not all government agencies are created equal in this regard and even those with a tradition of record-keeping, have their records protected by new interpretations of existing laws or concepts like Executive Privilege. This can only make getting to the bottom of current events even more difficult than it already is.”

Like Quezon, Communications Secretary Ricky Carandang had spoken and written fairly much in favor of the FOI before he became part of the Aquino Cabinet in July 2010.

Then a broadcaster and blogger, Carandang in one tweet even lamented the defeat of the FOI bill in the 14^th Congress. He wrote: “RIP Freedom of Information Bill. Died 4 June 2010.” – Jaemark Tordecilla, PCIJ, May 2011