Congress panel OKs measure
MANILA, Philippines—A bicameral conference has approved the proposed Freedom of Information Act, moving a step closer to an enabling law that gives flesh to the rights of citizens to have easy access to information held by the government.
The public right to information was enshrined in the Constitution 23 years ago.
All bicam members—three senators and eight members of the House of Representatives—signed the reconciled version of the bill late Friday.
Quezon Rep. Lorenzo “Erin” R. Tañada III, chair of the House committee on human rights, Sunday said the bicam report should be ready for ratification by both chambers Monday afternoon.
Congress has only three session days left before it takes a three-month break for the election campaign.
Tañada said he “has high expectations that both the Senate and the House will deliver a piece of legislation that has been enshrined in the Constitution but has been wanting of an enabling law—the right of citizens to access to information on matters of public concern.”
Contrary to Senate Majority Leader Miguel Zubiri’s claim, Tañada said all House members of the bicam panel had signed the reconciled version as of Friday.
Zubiri Sunday said he was told by the Senate secretariat that the bicam report still needed the signature of three to four congressmen.
Zubiri, who said that senators were supportive of the measure, appealed to the House members “not to sabotage the bill.”
The House members of the bicam panel are Representatives Bienvenido Abante Jr. of Manila, Tañada, Eduardo Zialcita of Parañaque, Rodolfo Antonino of Nueva Ecija, Emmanuel Joel Villanueva and Cinchona Cruz Gonzales of the party-list group Cibac, Jesus Crispin Remulla of Cavite, and Rodante Marcoleta of the party-list group Alagad.
Their Senate counterparts are Zubiri and Senators Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano.
Tañada said Abante, chair of the House panel, had directed the committee secretariat to transmit the complete copy of the reconciled copy of the proposed law with the signatures of the eight House members to the Senate.
Speaker Prospero Nograles has identified the proposed Freedom of Information Act as among his priority measures when he took over the helm as Speaker, according to Tañada.
“It is incumbent upon him to now ensure its ratification. As a matter of course, both the House and the Senate should act on any bicam report that is already submitted. After that, the ball shifts to Malacañang,” added Tañada, who chaired the technical working group and shepherded the bill’s passage in the House.
House Bill No. 3732 was passed on May 12, 2008, while its counterpart version, Senate Bill No. 3308, was approved only in December last year.
If signed into law, the proposed act will make available to the people all public records in print, sound or visual form.
Corruption
The bill seeks to mandate all government agencies to upload all contracts or transactions on the Web, prompting Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, principal author of SB 3308, to say that this would lessen corruption endemic in the bureaucracy.
“Corruption is one of the country’s biggest problems and challenges. Many lose hope not because corruption remains hidden but because despite knowing the instances of graft few, if any, get prosecuted,” said Cayetano, chair of the Senate committee on public information and mass media.
He said one reason for this was the lack of a paper trail and difficulty of producing evidence enough for conviction.
“Even the more experienced graft investigators and investigative journalists most of the time produce bits and pieces of evidence,” he said.
Game-changer
Cayetano, a lawyer, said the new law could be a game-changer.
“A paradigm shift fought for by the advocates for transparency and accountability, (the new law) will empower all Filipinos to be graft busters, or Sherlock Holmes’ assistants!” he said.
The act provides that the paper trail be easily accessible in all government agencies and criminal prosecution for those who refuse the release of data or information, he said.
Mandatory posting on Web
Cayetano said the new law would further encourage people to be involved in mandatory posting on the Web of items most associated with graft, like the procurement of contracts and the waiver of rights.
“The law will also further strengthen the Philippine media by empowering and boosting research into government dealings,” the senator said.
The Access to Information Network, an alliance of organizations advocating full enjoyment of the people’s right to information, hailed the impending passage of the bill.
“At stake, too, at this crucial juncture is the country’s strategic future, given the critical role of public access to information in combating corruption that has weighed down development, as well as its role in securing meaningful public participation to facilitate effective and responsive government policies,” the group said.
The act mandates government agencies to make available to the public “scrutiny, copying and reproduction, all information pertaining to official acts, transactions as well as government research data used as basis for policy development regardless of their physical form or format in which they are contained and by whom they were made.”
Full public disclosure
Besides upholding the right of the people to information, the proposed law promotes the state policy of “full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest” as enshrined in Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) and Article 3, Section 7 (Bill of Rights).
If the government agency decides to deny any request for information, in whole or in part, it shall within seven days from the receipt of the request, notify the person making the request of such denial in writing or through electronic means.
Denial of access to information shall be appealable to the agency concerned 15 days from the notice of denial, but the Office of the Ombudsman can be asked to resolve the appeal in 60 days.
Penalty, exceptions
A penalty of imprisonment of one to six months, not less than one month but not more than six months awaits those who would violate the proposed legislation.
The bill sets out clearly defined and reasonable exceptions, including matters dealing with national defense and security, ongoing foreign affairs negotiations, trade secrets, drafts of executive orders and personal information.
Access to information may be denied on the following grounds:
• When the information is specifically authorized to be kept secret under guidelines established by an executive order.
• The information requested pertains to internal and external defense and law enforcement, when the revelation thereof would render a legitimate military or police station ineffective, unduly compromise the prevention, detection or suppression of a criminal activity, or endanger the life or physical safety of confidential or protected sources or witnesses, law enforcement and military personnel or their immediate families.
• The information requested pertains to the personal information of a natural person other than the requesting party and its disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of his or her personal privacy.
• The information requested pertains to trade, industrial, financial or commercial secrets of a natural or juridical person other than the requesting party.
• The information is privileged from production in legal proceedings by law or by the rules of court unless the person entitled to the privilege has waived it.
• The information requested is exempted by law or the Constitution.
• The information requested is obtained by any committee of either the Senate or the House in executive session.
• The information requested consists of drafts of decisions by any executive, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body in the exercise of their adjudicatory functions whenever their revelation would reasonably tend to impair the impartiality of verdicts or obstruct the administration of justice.
Safeguards
To safeguard against government abuse of these exceptions, the proposed law said an agency should specify the public interest sought to be protected by the nondisclosure of information.
Second, there is a legal presumption in favor of access to information.
Third, requesters have the opportunity to show that the public interest in the disclosure outweighs the harm to the public interest sought to be prevented by the exceptions.
Fourth, any public officer or employee claiming an exception under the act faces criminal liability if it is shown that the claim is manifestly devoid of factual basis. With a report from Juan V. Sarmiento Jr.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment