The right to know

President-elect Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III rode on a campaign slogan that endeared him to the Filipino people, making them stake all their bets on him. Despite having nine other contenders to the presidential post, President-elect Noynoy, won by a landslide. His slogan? “Walang mahirap kung walang corrupt” (There is no poverty where there is no corruption). Somehow, it evoked in people a feeling of trust and hope that corruption will be eradicated in this graft-ridden nation, and that poverty will be largely eliminated.

The passing into law of the Freedom of Information bill would have been a most potent tool to eliminate or, at the very least, weaken corruption. Sadly, the House of Representatives, in its last legislative session on June 4, ensured its death. Declaring a lack of quorum, Speaker Prospero Nograles adjourned the session sine die (without a re-setting to another date.) The media and anti-graft organizations, as well as civil society, raised howls, especially because the determination of the presence or absence of a quorum was done in unusual haste and under suspicious circumstances. Some congressmen claimed that they were present in the roll call but were not called out. On the other hand, there were some who were present and whose names were called out but did nothing to be recognized. Of the 268 members of the House, including party list representatives, only 128 were present —seven warm bodies shy of a quorum. Sad, because in December 2009, the Senate had approved on third and final reading its version of the bill. Senate committee chair on public information and mass media, Alan Peter Cayetano, had said then that the bill would soon be a law because all that was needed was for the bicameral committee of the Senate and the House to jointly approve the bill.

What is the Freedom of Information bill all about? And what is the implication of the bill’s killing on the campaign promise of newly-elected President Aquino to rid the government of corruption? The bill is about giving life to the constitutional right of the people to know, and be informed, of matters affecting public interest enshrined in Article III section 7 of the Philippine Constitution. It broadens the requirement for disclosure of state transactions involving public interest. According to Senator Cayetano, the requirement for government to disclose does not only cover public documents but knowledge, too, of transactions that may affect the public This means that even without a document, officials or employees of a public office or department are required to disclose and discuss what they know about certain transactions, the senator said. The Freedom of Information law would have been so crafted as to not require an explanation why a document or information is being requested. Instead, if a request for information or document is denied, the state or agency making the denial must explain why the request cannot be granted.

The first step toward combating corruption is transparency. Transparency is a deterrent to graft because it can make the official or employee accountable for his acts or omissions. Without a Freedom of Information Law, it will be a tough act for an outsider in an organization to get hold of documents and information about transactions that affect public interest. Thus, there will be heavy reliance on whistle blowers, or insiders who know the truth, to willingly come out and squeal vital information involving a corrupt act. Yet, as we have witnessed not too long ago, whistleblowers end up getting indicted and prosecuted, rather than rewarded. So, that is now hardly an option, if graft were to be realistically reduced, if not eliminated. In the administration of outgoing president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, she successfully blocked the testimonies and disclosures of her cabinet men in a number of issues by invoking executive privilege. If a Freedom of Information Law were then already in place, it would have been much easier to unearth and prove corrupt practices in government.

Over 85 countries around the globe have, in their bodies of laws, a freedom of information legislation. Sweden was the first country to have passed a freedom of information law, doing it in 1766. Most of the western world countries have such a law, and quite a number of our Asian neighbors have their own versions, too. The Republic of China (Taiwan) and India passed a Freedom of Information legislation in 2005; Pakistan in 2002; Japan in 1999; South Korea in 1996; Hong Kong and Thailand in 1995.

What happened in the House of Representatives this month—when the Freedom on Information bill was shot down—highlighted two points. One, that there is an acute need to re-visit and re-think the wisdom of having a bicameral legislature. Do we really need to pay for the salaries and horrendous pork barrel of an upper and a lower house, having exactly the same function but contradicting each other on key legislations, more often than not? This will entail reforms in the Constitution but this cannot be ignored anymore. Two, President-elect Aquino will need to show teeth and certify that this bill is urgent to carry out his campaign promise of eradicating corruption in government. The first 100 days in office of the new president are crucial. We all know that the challenges he is facing are enormous. But, the hopes pinned on him by the people must take a front seat, if he is to enjoy the people’s trust and support throughout his term. –Atty. Rita Linda V. Jimeno, Manila Standard Today

E-mail: ritalindaj@gmail.com Visit: www.jimenolaw.com.ph