Freedom for Information?

 

The FOI badge, image courtesy by pcij.org

 

Freedom for Information?

As a journalist for almost eight years covering different government agencies, local government units and other offices functioning for giving government service, I have experienced how these offices perform their duties. Most of the times the head of offices give us interview to complete our stories, at some point we requests for data on records to support the facts we gathered. To be fair, some agencies and certain officials are very open in making their records public, but some especially those who are connected with finances are still reluctant and have strict standards before releasing any documents.

Common practice for now, agencies and offices has their own system in granting requests for information. Records on education, health, tourism and some others are easily obtained. But for offices whose concern are to expenditures, contracts or any related to the use of the taxpayer’s money they require a letter address to their supervisor indicating reasons for requesting a copy of a certain document. Normally it is not released on the day it was requested and it takes some times to finally get a copy of the requested document, and in some cases documents are not even complete.

Sometime in 2010, I was assigned to make a story on why a certain provincial board in Region 1 does not conduct its session regularly. I asked the secretariat to give me a permission to see and photocopy the attendance of the provincial board members, to establish who among them has the most number of absence or who among them reports regularly. But until the term of the said board members that story was never completed because of my failure to get a copy of the attendance during that time due to the resistance of some personalities. In that story I was supposed to present how the board members of this province are performing because their constituents deserved to know – do these board members deserves the position? This is just one of the many instances where I was denied for a request to have needed documents from a government office when I am still starting in the business. Imagine me as journalist whose part of my job is to explain and expose public records for the welfare of my audience and readers, at some point was denied to access such then it would be even more challenging for ordinary citizens who may not have the time, resources or even connections to do requests. This is what the freedom of information bill seeks to address, to make a transparent serving government.

Journalists like me always believe that a freedom of information law or the right to information is already enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution like our freedom for speech. In section 7 of the Bill of Rights it states that “the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, 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.”  One relevant provision is also found on Section 28, Article II which states that “subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the States adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.” Section 24 of the same article of the constitution also says that “the State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation building.” With these guarantee from the constitution, questions like why it is not being followed or why there is still a need for a freedom of information law still arises. I can say that base on my experiences of inconsistencies in accessing government information a freedom of information act could fill the gap of the absence of standards and procedures for a people’s right to information.

In 2008, house bill 3732 entitled An Act Implementing the Right to Access to Information on Matters of Public Concern was filed and brought to the house floor on May, 2009 and later passed on the second reading. June of 2009 a committee report was filed on the Senate regarding the Freedom of Information Act and on December of that year the Senate voted 12-0 approving the FOIA on third reading. On January 2010 the bicameral committee approved the FOIA, the senate ratifies the bicameral version and the approval of the House of Representatives was needed until the congress at that time adjourns for the 2010 National and Local elections. The freedom of information act left hanging. Here comes the Aquino Administration who headlines “tuwid na daan” at some point then President Benigno Aquino III expressed his support for a passage of a freedom of information law. On 2013, another attempt was considered and a house bill in the sixteenth Congress was file entitled An Act to strengthen the right of citizens to information held by the government or simply the Freedom of Information Act of 2013. At the end of President’s Aquino incumbency no freedom of information was created into a law.

Universally, a freedom of information law is vital. It is not just important for public accountability and equality in treatment of the citizens under the rule of law – it is an effective tool to combat corruption in the government. Its advantages includes, making public knowledgeable about how the government works and requires government officials to be honest and accountable for their actions as their records are made public.

The house bill version in 2013 defines information as any record, document, paper, report, letters, contract, minutes and transcript of official meetings, maps, books, photographs, data, research material, film, sound and video recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data, computer stored data, or any other like similar data or material recorded, stored or archived in whatever form or format which, which are made, received or kept on 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. My thoughts on the types of information that might be release if a freedom of information law will be passed - it will be very helpful for journalist like me since at the moment copies of government contracts, even transcript of official meetings, sound and video recordings as well as electronic data are those that are very hard to request from different government offices. With the vast kind of information that is identified, the public will really be served honestly as chances for irregularities conducted by officials become slimmer. My only problem on this is that, what if some offices will find ways to classify information that might be released or not. Although even if there will be a law that will state types of information to be made public, some will still resort to doing things to protect interests. In order for this not to happen, the particular section that state the liability of a certain official or employee who falsely denies or conceals the existence of information should be highlighted in public discussion or dissemination of the proposed law or even a copy of it should be posted in government offices to serve as a reminder. In this version it also identifies the type of information that is mandatory to be disclosed, such as a copy of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) on annual basis of the President, the Vice President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank. But since corruption is almost all around the corner, a freedom of information law would be more effective if it all requires not only the one mentioned but all serving under the government. For example a public disclosure of a Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth or SALN of those who are elected officials of the different local government units such as the provinces, cities and municipalities would give the public a way to monitor the lifestyle of their leaders. For example a newly elected Governor of a certain province in his first term could already built a mansion then a copy of his SALN could be a help to identify if there is any irregularities on the construction or not.

The new medium of communication such as the internet will also be tapped in publishing some information, websites of the different government offices will be used to publish identified information for transparency and service efficiency. This is a momentous provision since no one can deny that communication made via the internet are already becoming the most popular if not the most popular at this time because of its accessibility in a short period of time.

But still obtaining information from different offices will still requires submission requests either personally, by mail, or through electronic means. Each request must include the name, contact information and the reason of the one requesting the information. Like the usual protocol presenting or submitting a photocopy of an identification card of the one requesting is also a must. However, there is no assurance for a quick released of requested information on the same day it was requested as the proposed law only states that a government agency has fifteen days to comply or deny a request. By this someone who plans to request are advised to make it ahead of the schedule when the information is needed.

On exceptions, there is a need to thoroughly screen the types of information that will be released publicly. There should be a provision that will clearly define how the government could prevent the leak of information and how to response if such happens. In general, a freedom of information law main disadvantage is the extent of damage that it may cause once a certain type of information classified as ‘”confidential” is released. For example, a freedom of information law may jeopardize the relationship of the Philippines to other countries through the public release of certain information such as documents on the country’s plans on internal and external defence, law enforcement and border control. Release of certain information has a great affect on the conduct of negotiations especially to the aspect of security. The media and all other should also be made liable once “confidential” information is released either in broadcast, print or even on social media. Although some media organizations have their own ethical standards which served as their basis to what to broadcast or published, some individual media practitioner who are not covered to such sometimes thinks more of personal fulfilment thinking using risky information could made them on the top. Since media practitioners sometimes has their own way of getting even the most “sacred” information.

It is also interesting to highlight that some version of the freedom of information act also exempt the release of some personal information. In the 2013 House Bill version it states that  “The information requested pertains to the personal information of a natural person other than the requesting party, and its disclosure would clearly 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 related to his or her public function or the person has consented in writing to the disclosure of the information.” This particular provision only proves that there should also be a great responsibility by the government to protect the privacy not only of the one who is serving by the government but also their family members who might be affected if such personal information will be released. Even with the presence of a freedom of information law, there should be a consideration that any released should not endanger the life or physical safety of any individual like giving consideration to possible harm that it may give the country once a “confidential” information was made public.

Government agency as defined in the proposed freedom of information law, are the executive, legislative and judicial branches as well as the constitutional bodies and all national government and its agencies, departments, bureaus, offices and instrumentalities, constitutional commissions, chartered institutions, regulatory agencies, government-owned or controlled corporation, state universities and colleges, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police, all offices in the Congress including the offices of Senators and Representatives, and the Supreme Court and all lower courts. It also includes all the local government units and all their agencies making the freedom of information effectively diverse, since more people interaction with the government is made in the local level and not at the national. For example, they interact with police if they got involved in any crime including traffic violations, they go to rural health units for health and social services and acquire most public records such as birth, marriage and death certificates, business permits, operations permits for public transportations and even land ownership from the different function departments of a local government unit. Most importantly, the public pay their taxes to their local government unit. With these more personal interactions in the local, it is expected that a fair and honest treatment is assured for the public interest.    

With the very long wait and a very critical political process for a freedom of information law, even in his few days in office, President Rodrigo Duterte signed an executive order allowing public access to documents and information in all government agencies under his office. The executive order is entitled “Operationalizing in the Executive Branch the People’s Constitutional Right to Information and the State Policies of Full Public Disclosure and Transparency in the Public Service and Providing Guidelines Therefor.” The executive order is an adoption to the long-pending version of the freedom of information. The president also ordered that government agencies covered by his executive order should not charge any fee for granting the requests of the public for information, records and documents to official transactions except for some instances.  The executive department however should be clear about the exceptions to the free access and should reiterate the penalties of officials or government employees who would fail to comply. One positive thing in this executive order is that, it gives the lawmakers a signal that the president could be very supportive to finally made freedom of information into a law after almost three decades of fighting to strengthen the public right to information since the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It has been said in the news that the leaders of both the House of Representatives and the Senate will study the possibility of fast tracking the creation of a freedom of information law.

In summary, we can say that the freedom of information has its own advantages and disadvantages. It is an important ingredient in the advancement and development of the government since it gives the public the right for transparency in order to determine if their leaders deserve re-election or whether they should be removed from the office because of anomalies or mismanagement. But irresponsibly acquiring services for the freedom of information could cause serious problems, but still I believed that positive benefits far out-weight the negative ones.