Palace vows to push for passage of FOI bill

SAYING that it will vigorously pursue passage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill, Malacañang on Friday said that it had submitted to the House of Representatives its version of the measure, which aims to promote transparency by giving people access to government documents.

President Benigno Aquino 3rd tration voted into power to work himself said that the bill was sent under the same standard of transto their coalition partners in the parency and accountability that we House on Thursday morning. have set for ourselves. This is a sig

“We want every other adminis- nificant step toward achieving that goal,” President Aquino said in a speech delivered at the 112th anniversary of Manila Bulletin on Thursday night.

According to Palace deputy spokesman Abigail Valte, the measure may not be included in the priority bills that House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. submitted but that its passage would be pursued vigorously.

“The FOI version we submitted yesterday [ Thursday] was crafted way after the decision on 13 priority measures was made. President Aquino has finally authorized a version and we will pursue it vigorously,” Valte said in a text message sent to reporters also on Friday.

Mr. Aquino last month ordered his Cabinet to “push ahead” with the bill in response to persistent demands from the public and media outlets to certify it as urgent.

Various versions of the measure have been pending before both chambers of Congress.

Article III, Section 7 and Article II, Section 28 of the 1987 Constitution guarantee the rights of people to access information and documents of public interest.

The Constitution, however, says that access to public documents must be “subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law.”

The House failed to ratify the bill last June because of lack of quorum.

It was believed that the suicide was triggered by attempts to force him to testify on anomalous deals.

“This path back to our bosses has not been an easy one to tread. It has encountered its share of resistance, controversy, and even tragedy. I have said, from the beginning, that an order from above will not magically change the system. The turnaround that the DBP is now experiencing was about the initiative, hard work and courage of so many people: the new and committed Board of the DBP; a Senate and House of Representatives that stand with us in our agenda of reform; and the hundreds of employees of the DBP who now find a space where decency and integrity are lauded, not stifled,” the President said.

Another P2.5 million was reportedly diverted to Binhi Inc. and P5.5 million to Bukidnon Vegetable Producers Cooperative, a private entity.

“Unquestionably, therefore, under the foregoing premises, the argument that he cannot be suspended from office because he is an alter ego of the President and as such, to suspend him would be tantamount to suspending the President himself, is erroneous, utterly bereft of legal basis,” the court said.

While it is true that Acosta is no longer a member of the House of Representatives, he is still a public official, it added.

For that, the Sandiganbayan upheld that he is still “influential” and that “unless he is suspended, he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both.”

The Sandiganbayan ordered Acosta to be suspended for 90 days and “directed [him] to cease and desist from further performing or exercising” his government positions.

It also directed the Office of the President through the Executive Secretary to implement the suspension order.

Acosta, a partymate of the President in the Liberal Party, ran for senator in 2010 but eventually lost.

Associate Justices Gregory Ong and Jose Hernandez concurred with the resolution.

Also on Friday, Undersecretary Manuel Quezon 3rd briefed Palace reporters on the matter, explaining in detail the new features of the bill that he himself helped craft.

He said that the Palace-minted measure required government officials, including members of the Supreme Court, to disclose their statements of assets, liabilities and net worth and post these documents on official websites of their respective agencies.

An agency that failed to release a valid request for a document could be sued before the Office of the Ombudsman, the Department of Justice or any regular court.

According to Quezon, the online publication of the wealth statements of the President, Vice President, Cabinet members, lawmakers, High Court justices, military officers with the rank of general or flag officer and members of constitutional offices will be required once the bill is passed.

But because of security concerns, Quezon said that some data in the wealth statements “may be redacted” during the crafting of the implementing rules and regulations if it would endanger the officials, particularly those in the military.

“Maybe we can redact or black out certain information such as the addresses of military generals in their [wealth statements] that will be posted on their official websites,” he added.