FOI and the media

Philippine media has been fighting and protecting its right to freedom of expression and speech to uphold its function as a watchdog of the government and a catalyst for social change. However, these can’t be fully realized in a democratic society without an informed media. Fortunately, the ever- stagnant Freedom of Information bill has come to life under Executive No. 2 which gives every Filipino citizen the right to all information pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as government research data used as a basis for policy development, regardless of its form or format. However, media practitioners and scholars have found loopholes in the act.

In line with the celebration of the 22nd Cebu Press Freedom Week, the Presidential Communications Secretary, Cebuano media practitioners, teachers and students from universities gathered to further understand the FOI and its relation to today’s media. Martin Andanar, the incumbent PCS, was invited as a guest speaker along with the three journalists/ panelists namely, lawyers Frank Malilong, Ian Vincent Manticajon, and Bobit Avila.

Andanar expressed his recognition to the President for making his promises happen by responding on the FOI bill just after 25 days of his inauguration. He strongly supports the President on this one because he too believes that FOI is a “necessary tool to corruption and other abuses in the govern- ment,” which I adhere too. As long as the people and the press are informed of what the government does with the public funds, how representatives make laws in the country, how the President manages international affairs, and the like, no abuses can be concealed. While FOI promotes transparency and accountability, healthy democratic relationship between the government and the Filipino people can be fully achieved.

Indeed, freedom of information is a promising right but apparently it cannot be absolute due to some reservations. Emphasized by Andanar, government documents and mechanisms that are matters of national security shall not be disclosed to the public for it might cause damage to the people and the integrity of the country. Also, private information, such as Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth or SALNs are exempted from public disclosure because doing so is considered contrary to public policy. Commercial interests are also protected by the Constitution thus rendered not subject to public consumption. These are to not cause harm on any individual and to avoid prejudice, respectively. Unsurprisingly, these three are firmly sheltered by the fundamental law from abuses of this freedom of information everyone enjoys.

What’s surprising is the accumulation of 166 exceptions in the draft rules of the order which are still being reviewed in Congress. This includes congressional spending and court proceedings despite the fact that this order only covers the executive branch. Too many that it might defeat the purpose of this EO, which is supposed to be a transparency measure, in the first place.

As mentioned, FOI does not cover all other government agencies meaning that the legislative and judiciary branches of the government are held unaccountable for the disclosure of information about the mechanisms within the Congress and the Courts. This may be acceptable to some extent; however, they must still be challenged to perform this task for the sake of the public awareness and democracy.

Technically, implementing this order in the near future may not be as simple as how we say it in three letters. As Andanar uttered, “it’s not an easy task.” There will be technical difficulties along the way as we consider the piled up work due to the demand of information from the masses. Thanks to the open data, which was initiated by the Noynoy Aquino administration, the government could utilize for archiving public documents.

Now, the problem potential of inefficient execution is the delay of access to information. We cannot deny the fact that sometimes technology cannot be trusted. It needs to have competent and well- structured databases where information can be kept secured. Manticajon raised this point saying that the government should aspire for easy-access websites because according to him, “access delayed is access denied.” He suggested that the government to be pro-active in making known to the public the information they need through regularly updating the websites of administrative bodies.

Another problem that could arise from the implementation of FOI is bureaucracy, as strongly condemned by Malilong. Because hierarchy of authorities may slow down the process, he suggested that information should be taken directly

from one source without people going through long processes of getting data. One demand would not take two or three agencies to respond. By all means, this is very convenient not only for the people but also for the government officials themselves.

I, for one, agree to those who propose that in-depth and deliberative review of the exceptions embedded in the order should be exercised and that necessary revisions must be presented. Lawmakers must assure that they categorize these exceptions and not just generalize them so to avoid absurdity and confusion among the constituents. Bureaucracy must be barred in the implementation of FOI as access to data should also be as easy and fast as how it should be. Most importantly, administrative sanctions must be imposed to non-compliant government officials for this is negligence of their duty to serve the people.

Freedom of information is a one step closer to achieving genuine democracy and we must be grateful that finally this is happening. Obstructions may arise brought by anomalies and hidden agenda of some self- interested politicians, the reason why we must be vigilant. Loopholes and abuses cannot be concealed as media will always stay critical in the discourse of policy-making because this is what greatly affects every citizen in the country, at any rate.