In my previous blogs, I discussed the urgency for the passage by the Philippine Congress of a pending bill entitled The Freedom of Information Act of the Philippines. I opined, among other things, that:
1. “Justice is an impossible dream and an illusion in a regime of secrecy and exclusion and in a culture of hidden agendas and non-disclosure.”
2. “All the loud and bombastic speeches and press releases of our corrupt and inutile politicians, legislators and bureaucrats about the fantasies of democracy, freedom, justice and development are useless, empty, hypocritical and delusional, because our Government refuses or neglects to adopt a Freedom of Information Act that will truly give flesh to the purifying principles of transparency, good governance and accountability.”
Below is a recent editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitled “Freedom To Find Out”, which supports my advocacy for the passage of the abovementioned urgent bill.
EDITORIAL
FREEDOM TO FIND OUT
Philippine Daily Inquirer
May 31, 2009
http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20090531-208060
IT HAS been over 20 years since the right to information was enshrined in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights, specifically Article III, Sec. 7 states:
“The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to limitations as may be provided by law.”
Also, Section 28 of Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) of our Constitution provides:
“Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”
But up to now, a law has yet to be enacted to put teeth into these constitutional injunctions. The House of Representatives has approved a Freedom of Information bill, but the Senate’s Committee on Public Information is still going through the process of passing a counterpart bill.
A coalition of civic groups and NGOs, called the Access to Information Network (AIN), has been lobbying long and hard for this bill to be passed. Unlike the dangerous Right of Reply bill of the Senate (now being tackled by the House), this is one law the country needs very badly – if our ongoing democratic project is to move forward and not backward.
Over the past few years, we have seen how controversy after controversy has erupted over government contracts and loans; and over cozy, because incestuous, relationships between officials and contractors for public works and other projects. Almost always in all those instances, the concerned government agencies – e.g., the Department of Public Works and Highways and the Department of Transportation and Communications; the Bureau of Internal Revenue and Bureau of Customs; the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, all within the ambit of the Office of the President of the Philippines – ended up trying to stamp out the controversy.
When a controversy arises, both the political class and the media – and the public, too – clamor for information, either to prove or disprove the allegations of wrongdoing. In response, more often than not, officialdom in the affected agencies would refuse to disclose data, documents or other information on the pretext that it would violate national security, or that the data are not available or too complex to disclose, or that there is no one to authorize the disclosure. Not to mention the catch-all excuse of “executive privilege.”
The proposed Freedom of Information Act, as AIN describes it, would promote disclosure because:
1. It is expansive in scope. It covers all possible government agencies, whether they’re in executive, legislative or judicial branches, or independent constitutional bodies. And it covers all information regardless of the form or format in which they are stored.
2. It provides only a narrow list of clearly defined and reasonable exceptions.
3. It provides an opportunity and right enabling citizens to override an exception whenever public interest in the disclosure of information is greater.
4. It provides a clear, uniform and speedy procedure for public access to information.
5. It provides the mechanics for compulsory disclosure by government agencies of information on government transactions.
6. It provides adequate and accessible remedies in cases where access to information is denied.
7. It provides clear criminal liabilities for violation of the right to information.
8. It spells out numerous mechanisms for the active promotion of openness in government.
Simply put, transparency should be the policy of government, and exceptions to this general rule should be difficult to assert. Which is not to say that the proposed law would be unreasonable or inimical to the security and stability of the state. After all, even proponents of the Freedom of Information bill acknowledge that official disclosure should be tempered if it would bring on or heighten the risk of war, or weaken an ongoing diplomatic negotiation, or hamper ongoing military or police operations.
But it must be government, and not the citizenry, that should bear the burden of proof in arguing for withholding information.
