Author: mcmangahas

OVER 300 student leaders of the University of the Philippines (UP) in Diliman have issued this single message to Congress: We DARe U: Pass the Freedom of Information bill now!

In a manifesto issued to coincide with the hearing on the FOI bill scheduled today, Nov. 27, by the Committee on Public Information of the House of Representatives, the student leaders challenged lawmakers to pass the bill, if they truly stand committed to good governance.

Convened by the University Student Council of UP Diliman, the DARe (Disclose all Records Now) Movement, said lawmakers must pass the FOI bill promptly, to help “shed sunlight on the dark crevices of all government offices.”

“A democratic government assumes that the people have a say on what the government does. The people can participate in the decision-making process of their government,” the DARe Movement said.

“But how can the people participate in governance if they do not have the information necessary for them to make intelligent decisions?” it added. “How will the people know if their agents are really doing their duties, and are not short-changing or fooling the principals, if the agents are not required to disclose all its official acts?”

USC Councilor Jules Guiang, DARe Movement convenor, and USC Chairperson Heart Diño are signatories, apart from the officers of various college student councils and organizations at UP Diliman.

What follows is the full text of the DARe Movement manifesto:

We DARe U: Disclose All Records Urgently
(DARe Movement Manifesto for Good Governance and the PASSAGE OF THE FOI BILL)

“Public office is a public trust.”

That is the overarching principle governing the conduct of all public servants: public officers act as agents who hold office by the trust given by the people as the principals.

But like any other principal-agent relationship, the agents are more often more knowledgeable, and hold more information, than their principals at any given time. More often, the principals are held in the dark, dependent on their agents’ wisdom and sense of duty.

The framers of our Constitution recognized this complex principal-agent relationship. Thus, the Constitution has clearly commanded full public disclosure of all acts of the public officer in the discharge of his or her duties:

• Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), Section 24: “The State recognizes the need for communication and information in nation-building.”

• Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), Section 28: “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.”

• Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 7: “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 to the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”

A democratic government assumes that the people have a say on what the government does. The people can participate in the decision-making process of their government.

But how can the people participate in governance if they do not have the information necessary for them to make intelligent decisions? How will the people know if their agents are really doing their duties, and are not short-changing or fooling the principals, if the agents are not required to disclose all its official acts?

The public has the right to know all official acts and transactions rendered by its leaders. The public has the right to know and scrutinize its agents’ financial records and dealings, to assure the public that their leaders are not skimming off with public monies for private and personal interests. The public has the right to know all of these because “sovereignty resides in the people, and all government authority emanates from them.”

Thus we, students of the University of the Philippines demand all our public officials, especially the high State officers, to fully disclose all records and transactions to the public, including all government contracts, and all Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALN). These documents and processes should be made publicly available in an efficient, timely, and inexpensive manner.

Further, we call on Congress, entering its last regular session before the 2013 election, to pass the Freedom of Information Bill, and shed sunlight on the dark crevices of all government offices.

The citizens are partners in governance. But how can a partner be productively involved in any endeavor if he or she does not possess all the information necessary to make an intelligent decision?

For good governance and the people,

We DARe them: DISCLOSE ALL RECORDS, NOW!

SIGNATORIES:

1. Jules Guiang, DARe Movement Convenor & USC Councilor
2. Sarah Isabelle Torres, DARe Movement Media & Communications Administrator and College of Mass Communication College Representative
3. Stephen Jun Villejo, DARe Movement Media & Communications Administrator and School of Statistics College Representative
4. Joeric Emil Crescini, DARe Movement Movement Expansion Administrator and College of Social Sciences and Philosophy College Representative
5. Heart Diño, USC Chairperson
6. Alex Castro, USC, Vice Chairperson
7. Eduard Francis Ayala, USC Councilor
8. Pat Bringas, USC Councilor
9. Aryanna Canacan, USC Councilor
10. Carlos Enrico Clement, USC Councilor
11. Maria Anna Espinosa, USC Councilor
12. Francisco Jayme Paolo Guiang, USC Councilor
13. Ma. Regina Punzalan, USC Councilor
14. Genesis Rapallo, USC Councilor
15. Alexandra Maria Santos, USC Councilor
16. Jose Miguel Solis, USC Councilor
17. Solomon Vicencio, USC Councilor
18. Erika Mary Erro, Asian Institute of Tourism College Representative
19. Peter Paredes, College of Architecture College Representative
20. Eduardo Gabral, College of Arts and Letters College Representative
21. Jonas Cruz, College of Business Administration College Representative
22. Chris Omega, College of Education College Representative
23. Sara Zemirah Go, College of Fine Arts College Representative
24. Carla Gonzales, College of Home Economics College Representative
25. Rejiel Gonzales, College of Engineering College Representative
26. Justin Palino, College of Engineering College Representative
27. Gayle Krystyle Grey, College of Human Kinetics College Representative
28. Ma. Christina Reyes, College of Law College Representative
29. Patricia Erika Poblador, College of Music College Representative
30. Serene Ezra Bondad, College of Science College Representative
31. Mark Joseph Tagala, College of Social Work and Community Development College Representative
32. Nikole Alicer, National College of Public Administration and Governance College Representative
33. Miko Gloria, School of Economics College Representative
34. Roscelle Cruz, School of Library and Information Studies College Representative
35. Val Yutan, DARe Movement Records Administrator and UP Paralegal Society President
36. Bea Obcena, DARe Movement Records Administrator
37. Carmela Sotelo, DARe Movement Expansion Administrator
38. Wilzhar Maquinta, DARe Movement Website Administrator
39. Mikhail Tizon, DARe Movement Website Administrator
40. Jean Yap, CSSC Chairperson
41. Jon Stewart Hao Dy, CSSC Vice-Chairperson
42. R. Lorenz Chua, CSSC Councilor
43. Viviene Santiago, CSSC Councilor
44. Ram Vincent C. Tomaneng, CSSC Councilor
45. Kevin Ferrer, CSSC Councilor
46. Ma. Lourdes Stephanie V. Leido, CSSC Councilor
47. Julia Rio Therese M. Negre, CSSC Councilor
48. John Gabriel Q. Nuque, Institute of Chemistry (IC) Representative
49. Joshua Immanuel I. Beringuela, National Institute of Physics (NIP) Representative
50. Joshua Reginald P. Malapit, National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (NIMBB) Representative
51. Cher Marie M. Tuason, Institute of Biology (IB) Representative
52. Pam Mesina, Institute of Mathematics (IM) Representativ
53. Dale Wilson A. Garcia II, Asst. Institute of Mathematics (IM) Representative
54. Piere Justin R. Luya, National Institute of Geological Sciences (NIGS) Representative
55. Jethro Antonio C. David, Asst. National Institute of Geological Sciences (NIGS) Representative
56. Norchel Corcia Gomez, Asst. Institute of Chemistry (IC) Representative
57. Kyle Adrianne Benito, Asst. Institute of Chemistry (IC) Representative
58. Rae Anne Anonuevo, Asst. National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (NIMBB) Representative
59. Damian Dailisan, Asst. National Institute of Physics (NIP) Representative
60. Mario Onglao, Asst. National Institute of Physics (NIP) Representative
61. Joannes Paulo Castro, Asst. Institute of Biology (IB) Representative
62. Giannina Nicole R. Feliciano, Asst. Institute of Biology (IB) Representative
63. Iris Jill G. Ortiz, Asst. National Institute of Geological Sciences (NIGS) Representative
64. Maria Almira S. Cleofe, Asst. National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (NIMBB) Representative
65. Jose Maria F. Hizon, Asst. Institute of Mathematics (IM) Representative
66. Andrew Rex Manalang, CSWCD Chairperson
67. Tricia Ann Mae Topacio, CSWCD Vice-Chair for Internal Affairs
68. Erika Isabel Yague, CSWCD Vice-chair for Externals
69. Keshia Villasper, CSWCD Secretary – General
70. Bianca Diaz, CSWCD Finance Officer
71. Rogerine Miguel, CSWCD Community Development Representative
72. Miguel Fernando, CSWCD Social Work Representative
73. Abbie Pundol, CSWCD Graduate Representative
74. Mario C. Urrutia III, CMC SC Chairperson
75. Carla Patrice S. Cucueco, CMC SC Vice Chairperson
76. Maria Fatima I. Gaw, CMC SC Secretary
77. Ma. Angela Teresa G. Sebastian, CMC SC Treasurer
78. Myra A. Cabujat, CMC SC Journalism Representative
79. Ma. Angerica Emmanuelle L. Hainto, CMC SC Journalism Representative
80. Macario B. Manicad III, CMC SC Broadcast Communication Representative
81. Triciah S. Terada, CMC SC Broadcast Communication Representative
82. Alyssa Mariel Suico, CMC SC Film Representative
83. Earl Joseph N. Usi, CMC SC Film Representative
84. Mari Angelyn M. Arambulo, CMC SC Communication Research Representative
85. Maylene L. Manzano, CMC SC Communication Research Representative
86. Abighael Dawn Marabut, ESC Chairperson
87. Lorraine Aguion, ESC Vice Chairperson
88. Leomer Paul Agcamaran, ESC Councilor
89. Jonathan Bantigue, ESC Councilor
90. Lalaine Malaluan, ESC Councilor
91. Alyanna Jean Maliwanag, ESC Councilor
92. Raymond Nhil Shappit, ESC Councilor
93. Charlene Bartolome, ESC CE Representative
94. John Philip Cabañero, ESC CE Representative
95. Jacob Carreon, ESC CE Representative
96. Joseph Romeo Diño, ESC CE Representative
97. Jayson Silang, ESC CE Representative
98. Edna Vianzon, ESC CE Representative
99. Megan Arsitoy, ESC ChE Representative
100. Paulette Canlas, ESC ChE Representative
101. Van Mintello Galman, ESC ChE Representative
102. Raymond Velasco, ESC ChE Representative
103. Anna Louise Wy, ESC ChE Representative
104. Catherine Marie Angangco, ESC CS Representative
105. Ricardo Bautista Jr., ESC CS Representative
106. John Joel Cabuhat, ESC CS Representative
107. Czelina Ellaine Litimco, ESC CS Representative
108. Gyver Acuna, ESC EEE Representative
109. Shakira Arguelles, ESC EEE Representative
110. Angelo Joseph Basilan, ESC EEE Representative
111. Bruxelle Jazschwa de Leon, ESC EEE Representative
112. Daniel Raymund Nieva, ESC EEE Representative
113. Kevin Orpilla, ESC EEE Representative
114. Rowen Palma, ESC EEE Representative
115. Daniel Fadi Rahayel, ESC EEE Representative
116. Vergel Villanueva, ESC EEE Representative
117. Carlyn Ann Ibanez, ESC GE Representative
118. Rey Rusty Quides, ESC GE Representative
119. Adriel Jireh Cucio, ESC IE Representative
120. Francisco Luis del Rosario, ESC IE Representative
121. Emmalie Claire Llanes, ESC IE Representative
122. April Rose Ramos, ESC IE Representative
123. Everett Lucien Antoine Ubiadas, ESC IE Representative
124. Isagani Barrameda, ESC ME Representative
125. Job Immanuel Encarnacion, ESC ME Representative
126. Jack Nicol Villanueva, ESC ME Representative
127. Ralph Nicolai Nasara, ESC MMM Representative
128. Katriel Gail Sadorra, ESC MMM Representative
129. Sylvester Sanchez, ESC MMM Representative
130. Kimberly Vielle Santiago, ESC MMM Representative
131. Racquel Vergara, ESC MMM Representative
132. Joseph Benjamin Del Mundo, ESC Graduate Representative
133. Shaina Santiago, KAISA – UP Chairperson
134. Mitchka Nicanor, PALS-NCPAG Chairperson
135. Karla Badong, Magkaisa – CSSP Chairperson
136. Elise Mendoza, Architecture SC Chairperson
137. Patricia Sim, Architecture SC VC-Externals
138. Aedriane Celis, Architecture SC VC-Internals
139. Lance Monfort , Architecture SC Councilor
140. Josef Ponce, Architecture SC Councilor
141. Timothy Ong, Architecture SC Councilor
142. Andoni Rex Centino, Architecture SC Councilor
143. Aura Soriano, Architecture SC Councilor
144. Angel Abrajano, Architecture SC Councilor
145. Kr Pueblos, Architecture SC Councilor
146. Stephanie Martinez, Architecture SC Councilor
147. Alex Aldaba, Architecture SC Councilor LArch Representative
148. Miguel Sebastian, Architecture SC First Year Representative
149. Alfonse Rulloda, Architecture SC Second Year Representative
150. Paula Francisco, Architecture SC Third Year Representative
151. Angeli Luna, Architecture SC Fourth Year Representative
152. Alver Remolar, Architecture SC Thesis Batch Representative
153. Christine-Joy Boller, AIT SC Chairperson
154. Danielle Grace Lopez, AIT SC Vice Chairperson
155. Joyce Marian Magsino, AIT SC Councilor
156. Paulo Riel Sotto, AIT SC Councilor
157. Quennie Mynette Lao, AIT SC Councilor
158. Arthur Jarold Ranola, AIT SC Councilor
159. Ana Grace Tayag, AIT SC Councilor
160. Darline Anne Salazar, AIT SC 4th Year Representative
161. Ma. Ysabelle Clarisse Anne Myca Bonoan, AIT SC 3rd Year Representative
162. Po Teresa Santiago, AIT SC 2nd Year Representative
163. Anne Belen, AIT SC 1st Year Representative
164. Andrea M. Castro, CHK SC Chairperson
165. Celize y. Mayuga, CHK SC Vice Chairperson
166. Daniel L. Guzman. CHK SC Councilor
167. Joseph H. Lu, CHK SC Councilor
168. Kevin R. Sandiego, CHK SC Councilor
169. Paolo Enrico H. Siasoco, CHK SC Councilor
170. Blesylda T. Busto, CHK SC BSS Representative
171. Jan Michael James F. Lazaro, CHK SC BSS Representative
172. Kim Aldrin M. Ammay, CHK SC BPE Representative
173. Andrea isabelle S. Callanta, CHK SC BPE Representative
174. Habagat D. Santos-Cuyugan, CHK SC CSS Representative
175. Ellaine Joyce Malelang, CHK SC Councilor 2011-2012
176. Ma. Theresa Carlos, NCPAG SG Chairperson
177. Beatrice Marie Achacoso, NCPAG SG Vice Chairperson
178. Charmen Balana, NCPAG SG Socio-Academic Affairs Administrator
179. Frances Grace Damazo, NCPAG SG Internal Affairs Administrator
180. Francheska Nicole Refuerzo, NCPAG SG Finance Administrator
181. Paolo Alcantara, NCPAG SG Undergraduate Councilor
182. Krista Emmadelle Andres, NCPAG SG Undergraduate Councilor
183. Hanna Giselle Miralles, NCPAG SG Undergraduate Councilor
184. Raymond Clarence Rodis, NCPAG SG Undergraduate Councilor
185. Russell Jef Castaneda, NCPAG SG Graduate Councilor
186. Marikris de Guzman, NCPAG SG Graduate Councilor
187. Cristymer Sheena Pimentel, NCPAG SG Graduate Councilor
188. Kelvin Tagnipez, SESC Chairperson
189. Benedict Bismark, SESC Vice Chairperson
190. Arianna Zapanta, SESC Secretariat Councilor
191. Simone Carpio, SESC Finance Councilor
192. Kevin Estopace, SESC Media and Publicity Councilor
193. Alan Orquinaza, SESC Sports, Arts and Culture Councilor
194. Louisa Poco, SESC Education and Research Councilor
195. Bettina Ramas, SESC Internal Affairs Councilor
196. Anne Trajano, SESC Marketing Councilor
197. Justin Baniqued, SESC Senior Representative
198. Marvin Marayag, SESC Senior Representative
199. Kim Philip Salazar, SESC Junior Representative
200. Romano Alonzo, SESC Junior Representative
201. Regine Rodriguez, SESC Sophomore Representative
202. Allan Dacanay, SESC Sophomore Representative
203. Justine Nuque, SESC Freshman Representative
204. Cara Latinazo, SESC Freshman Representative
205. Darrell Magsambol, SESC STRAW Ad Hoc Chairperson
206. Rafaelle Louise San Agustin, CFASC Chairperson
207. Carlo de Laza, CFASC Vice Chairperson
208. Katrina Andrews, CFASC Secretary
209. Julian Ricardo Geronimo, CFASC Treasurer
210. Elias Mile Villanueva, CFASC P.R.O
211. Pauline Villanueva, CFASC Councilor
212. Joanna Miemban, CFASC Councilor
213. Natasha Luistro, CFASC Councilor
214. Samantha Dedel, CFASC Viscom Representative
215. Chloe Dellosa, CFASC Studio Arts Representative
216. Paulina Miranda, College of Education Student Council Chairperson
217. James Tumlos, College of Education Student Council Vice-Chairperson
218. Curt Cruz, College of Education Student Council Councilor
219. Joy Manlapaz, College of Education Student Council Councilor
220. Mara de Guzman, College of Education Student Council Councilor
221. Pam Fabros, College of Education Student Council Councilor
222. Christienne Torralba, College of Education Student Council Councilor
223. Kathryn Deveza, College of Education Student Council Councilor
224. Manu Farol, FED UP Chairperson
225. Allan Cedrick Vargas, FED UP Member
226. Khalil Verzosa, FED UP Member
227. Jan Castolo, FED UP Member
228. Dan Liquigan, FED UP Member
229. Leopold Palad, FED UP Member
230. Regina Reyes, FED UP Member
231. Raila Puno, UP Environmental Law Society President
232. Alex Gamboa, UP Environmental Law Society External Vice President
233. Rocky Guzman, UP Environmental Law Society Internal Vice President
234. Kester Kua, UP Environmental Law Society Vice President for Finance
235. Mara Herrera, UP Environmental Law Society Vice President for Secretariat
236. Vino Lucero, UP Society of Progressive Students for Gender Emancipation and Human Rights (SPECTRUM)
237. Jouvani Isiderio Dollesin – UP Circa, Member
238. Rabelais Medina – UP Ballers, President
239. Noriel Santiago – UP Ballers, Member
240. Jes Castillio – UP Ballers, Member
241. Rockefeller Iligan – UP Ballers, Member
242. Albert Yatco – UP Ballers, Member
243. Zeus Larry Fontanilla – UP Ballers, Member
244. JM Ramos – UP Ballers, Member
245. Jun Russel Aquino – UP Ballers, Member
246. Sean Bas – UP Ballers, Member
247. Seth Galarosa – UP Ballers, Member
248. Gerald Ignacio – UP Ballers, Vice President
249. Royce Russel Magcawas Valencia – UP Ballers, MVP
250. Kyle Jemino – UP Ballers, Member
251. Rus San Diego, UP Ballers, Member
252. Eamon Ulibarri, UP Ballers, Member
253. Gerwin Rodriguez – UP Paralegal Society, Member
254. Bryan Joseph Costales – UP Paralegal Society, Member
255. Antonio Miguel Tulio – UP Paralegal Society, Member
256. Nathaniel Malit – UP Paralegal Society, Member
257. Redbert Chris Maines – UP Paralegal Society, Member
258. Vernon Chua – UP Paralegal Society, Member
259. Nathan Casanova – UP Paralegal Society, Internals Officer
260. Nathan Emil Legacion – UP Paralegal Society, Externals Officer
261. Frente Sur Melliza – UP Paralegal Society, Vice President
262. Isaiah Cabanero – UP Paralegal Society, Member
263. Rod Pino – Enrique Voltaire Garcia Debate Society, Member
264. Miggy Baretto – Enrique Voltaire Garcia Debate Society, Member
265. Dino Regalario – Enrique Voltaire Garcia Debate Society, Member
266. Fernando Bayad, Enrique Voltaire Garcia Debate Society, Member
267. Aeron Halos, Enrique Voltaire Garcia Debate Society, Member
268. Alvin Ogena, Enrique Voltaire Garcia Debate Society, Member
269. Mikhail Tizon, Enrique Voltaire Garcia Debate Society, Member
270. Martynov Medina, Enrique Voltaire Garcia Debate Society, Member
271. Carl Dion, UP Geological Society, Member
272. Regina Angela M. Carino, Deputy for Internal Affairs, KAISA Mo!
273. Paquito Tabago, UP EURO President
274. Samantha Claudene Sayo, UP EURO Vice President for Communications
275. Zaldy Bonagua, UP EURO Vice President for Administration
276. Sabrina Gayle Mendoza, UP EURO Vice President for Finance
277. April Joy Lorenzo, UP EURO Vice President for Operations
278. Simon Dominic Agner, UP EURO Vice President for Relations
279. Robbie Villanueva, UP EURO Director for Documentation
280. Moira Gail Pavino, UP EURO Director for Publicity
281. Marrianne Luzzete Gilhang, UP EURO Director for Human Resources
282. Ann Lousie Reyes, UP EURO Director for Internal Affairs
283. Dawn Betina Bernabe, UP EURO Director for Marketing and Events
284. Sir Albertti Flores, UP EURO Director for Fund Management
285. Maira Noelle Saldajeno, UP EURO Director for Academic Affairs
286. Candy Quebral, UP EURO Director for Community Extension
287. Marleen Coronel, UP EURO Director for External and and Alumni
288. Claudene Enduma, UP EURO Director for University Affairs
289. Bea Treena Macasaet, UP EURO Member
290. Maria Victoria Maglanque, UP EURO Member
291. Joanh Lualhati, UP EURO Member
292. Kizia Daquilanea, UP EURO Member
293. Arnie Gem Moranda, UP EURO Member
294. Jaime Lorenzo Regino, UP EURO Member
295. Sophia Romblon, UP EURO Member
296. Monica San Diego, UP EURO Member
297. Justine Mhay Caraan, UP EURO Member
298. Janine Kate Marteinic, UP EURO Member
299. Rogie Nichole Aquino, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila-CPT Student Council Treasurer
300. Charlene Rose Cadhit, PALS-NCPAG Vice President for Internal Affairs
301. Rodrido Villalon, PALS-NCPAG Vice President for External Affairs
302. Jen Monje, PALS-NCPAG Vice President for Logistics and UP Alyansa Member
303. Barbara Candano, KAISA – Nagkakaisang Iskolar para sa Pamantasan at Sambayanan, Member
304. Julia Alexandra Chu, AIESEC UP Diliman Local Committee President
305. Ma. Carmela Victoria N. Bangsal, UP CMC ISA President
306. Elizabeth Anne P. Cabiling, UP CMC ISA Secretary-General
307. Dan Gabriel S. Santos, UP CMC ISA Vice-President for Political Affairs
308. Denise Layla P. Miram, UP CMC ISA Vice-President for Finance and Marketing
309. Roselle Joyce M. Torrecampo, UP CMC ISA Vice-President for Internal Affairs
310. Edmer C. Maguan, UP CMC ISA Vice-President for External Affairs
311. Marko A. Yambao, UP CMC ISA Vice-President for Publicity and Promotions

By Atty. Nepo Malaluan
Co-Convenor, Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition

IN AN opinion piece published last October, political economy expert and Akbayan Party-List Rep. Walden Bello wondered whether or not there was an ideological connection between Malacañang’s lack of support for the passage of the Freedom of Information bill and its vigorous push for cyberlibel. At the same time, Rep. Bello had wondered, and hoped, that the situation was merely one of President Aquino getting bad advice.

But if it was indeed “a case of an ideological position,” Rep. Bello felt that it was “truly disturbing” as it hints at a “conservative, elitist stance on free speech and transparency issues.”

President Aquino himself would later volunteer a plain, clear answer to Rep. Bello’s question in his speech before the management conference of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas on November 15.

The President said:

“Sa karanasan ko po, tila ba nakasanayan na ng media ang magpaulan ng batikos sa mga lumalabas na balita. Allergic po yata ang iba sa good news – kundi man iiwasan ang mga ito, ay hahanapan naman nila ng masamang anggulo….

[In my experience, it looks like the media has gotten used to raining criticisms in the news that come out. I guess others are allergic to good news -- if these can't be avoided they will look for a negative angle...]

“Sa dulo po nito, tayo ring mga Pilipino ang makikinabang sa makatotohanan at kumpletong pamamahayag. Kapag may sapat at tamang impormasyon si Juan dela Cruz sa mga isyung panlipunan—hindi lamang siya armado sa kaalaman—gaganahan at maeengganyo rin siyang makilahok sa pagpapaunlad ng bayan.

[In the end, it is also us Filipinos who will benefit from truthful and complete journalism. If Juan dela Cruz has sufficient and correct information about issues of society – not only is he armed with – he will also be inspired and encouraged to participate in the effort to develop the country.]

“Hindi po nalalayo sa diwang ito ang paninindigan natin ukol sa mga isyu tungkol sa media at publiko, tulad ng Right of Reply. Ika nga: the truth will set you free – kung patas na naibabalita ang magkabilang panig ng bawat storya, kung wasto ang detalye ng bawat ulat, at kung nabibigyang-halaga ang kalayaan ng mga Pilipinong bumuo ng sariling pananaw at pasya sa mga usaping panlipunan, wala naman pong dapat alalahanin ang sinumang mamamahayag, ’di po ba?”

[This idea is not far from my conviction about issues concerning the media and the public, such as Right of Reply. As they say: the truth will set you free - if the two sides of every story is reported equally, if every detail is accurate, and if the freedom of Filipinos to form their own view and decision on public issues, every journalist has nothing to fear, right?]

It is one thing for the President to express his views on how he thinks the press should be doing its reporting; it is another thing altogether to propose to enforce it by legislation.

The notion that fairness, positive slant, and accuracy in reporting can be made a legal requirement, as the President seems to suggest by making these the context for his mention of the Right of Reply, is repugnant to both our Constitutional guarantee and international human rights standards on freedoms of speech, expression, opinion, and the press.

Section 4 of our Bill of Rights provides that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press. A right of reply to enforce fairness is an abridgement.

A US case (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo) decided in 1974 is illustrative.

In 1972, Tornillo ran for a seat in the Florida House of Representatives. Miami Herald published editorials critical of his candidacy. When Tornillo’s demand for printing of his reply was refused, he sued Miami Herald based on a Florida right of reply statute.

This statute gives a candidate the right to demand the printing of a reply, free of cost to the candidate, if his nomination or election is assailed with respect to his personal character or official record by any newspaper, under pain of penalty should the demand be refused.

The US Supreme Court declared the statute unconstitutional. It said:

x x x A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and, like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated.

Appellee’s argument that the Florida statute does not amount to a restriction of appellant’s right to speak, because “the statute in question here has not prevented the Miami Herald from saying anything it wished,” begs the core question. Compelling editors or publishers to publish that which “‘reason’ tells them should not be published” is what is at issue in this case. The Florida statute operates as a command in the same sense as a statute or regulation forbidding appellant to publish specified matter.

“Governmental restraint on publishing need not fall into familiar or traditional patterns to be subject to constitutional limitations on governmental powers. The Florida statute exacts a penalty on the basis of the content of a newspaper. The first phase of the penalty resulting from the compelled printing of a reply is exacted in terms of the cost in printing and composing time and materials and in taking up space that could be devoted to other material the newspaper may have preferred to print.

“It is correct, as appellee contends, that a newspaper is not subject to the finite technological limitations of time that confront a broadcaster, but it is not correct to say that, as an economic reality, a newspaper can proceed to infinite expansion of its column space to accommodate the replies that a government agency determines or a statute commands the readers should have available.

Faced with the penalties that would accrue to any newspaper that published news or commentary arguably within the reach of the right-of-access statute, editors might well conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy. Therefore, under the operation of the Florida statute, political and electoral coverage would be blunted or reduced. Government-enforced right of access inescapably “dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”

In terms of international human rights standards, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

“1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.”

In General Comment No. 34 (102nd session, Geneva, 11-29 July 2011), the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) provided guidance for the interpretation and observance of the said Article 19.

It emphasized that no restriction is allowed on grounds not specified in Article 19 (3). If any restriction is at all imposed, it must conform to “the strict tests of necessity and proportionality” and “may not put in jeopardy the right itself.”

Not only are the objectives contemplated for introducing the idea of a Right of Reply in the President’s speech not among the list of grounds for restrictions in the provision, they attack the very rights protected by Article 19. Freedom is abridged through mandatory publication of a reply for the purpose of shaping and balancing reportage.

What is worse, the area where the restriction is sought to apply — the media coverage of matters of public interest or concern — is one which the law accords even higher protection.

In the case of Borjal vs. CA (G.R. No. 126466 January 14, 1999), the Supreme Court states: “A newspaper especially one national in reach and coverage, should be free to report on events and developments in which the public has a legitimate interest with minimum fear of being hauled to court by one group or another on criminal or civil charges for libel, so long as the newspaper respects and keeps within the standards of morality and civility prevailing within the general community.”

We hear politicians cry of the media being “too powerful.”

What citizens must not lose sight of is that the purpose of the guarantee of a free press is not to accord the press a privileged standing. It is to protect citizens from the abuse by government officialdom of the power and authority we entrust to them as well as the taxes that we pay for government operation.

In US vs. Bustos (G.R. No. L-12592, March 8, 1918), the Supreme Court points out: “The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts.”

The Court, in Borjal vs. CA, did take the opportunity to “remind media practitioners of the high ethical standards attached to and demanded by their noble profession.” But to promote responsibility, the Court pointed to self-regulation as “the ideal mean” rather than “self-censorship that would necessarily accompany strict liability for erroneous statements.”

The idea of the right of reply takes concrete form in a proposed rider to the FOI bill by Rep. Rodolfo Antonino. He inserts in his version the provision:

“Opportunity to Reply – Any person natural or juridical who came to be involved directly or indirectly in the issue publicly obtained must be given the opportunity to account for, explain, manifest or throw light upon the issue concerned in the following manner:

(a) That, it shall be in the same space of the printed material, newspapers or magazines, newsletters or publications circulated commercially or for free;

(b) That, it shall be aired over the same program on radio, television, website, or any electronic device as the case may be;

(c) That mandatory explanation on the part of the person natural or juridical who is involved or happened to be involved in the public information obtained shall be published or broadcasted not later than three (3) days;

(d) That the explanation shall be thorough, clear and complete as to shed light on the issue of public concern.”

Elsewhere in his bill, Rep. Antonino provides the consequences for failure to publish or broadcast the reply:

“The publisher and editor-in-chief of the publication or the owner and station manager of the broadcast media who fails or willfully refuses to publish or broadcast the manifestation of the person who happened to be involved in the issue concerned as mandated in this Act shall be fined an amount not exceeding P10,000 for the first offense; P50,000 for the second offense; P100,000 for the third offense and closure or suspension as the case may be, of the franchise of the publication or broadcast media outlet or station for 30 days.”

Thus, mere being “involved directly or indirectly in the issue publicly obtained” gives a natural or juridical person the right to demand the publication of a reply, on pain of fines and even closure.

Every publication (and the proposed provision is all encompassing, not limited to media publication) of a matter making use of information obtained through the FOI law carries with it a legal responsibility to publish a reply of any natural or juridical person “involved directly or indirectly in the issue”.

The requirement, which carries with it a penalty, obtains whether or not you want to publish a reply, the reply is relevant, or you have the resources for such reply. Where is the guarantee of freedom in that?

In the advocacy for the passage of the FOI bill in the 15th Congress, we engaged the government in earnest to address various concerns on the bill. The changes we accepted, subject to safeguards, were major: expansion of the national security exception, addition of executive privilege, reclassification of offenses from criminal to administrative, and allowing the defense of good faith for violations of the act.

We, citizens, not just the media, recognize the responsibility that goes with our exercise of our right to information.

To address the concerns over possible abuse of the FOI, we worked out with the Senate committee the following provision:

“No abuse in the exercise of rights and in the performance of duties under this Act. – Public officials and employees, in the performance of their duties under this Act, as well as citizens in the exercise of their rights under this Act, shall act with justice, give everyone his or her due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Public officials and employees as well as citizens shall endeavor to handle information kept or obtained under this Act with due care, to the end that inaccuracies and distortions are avoided.

Any public official or employee, or citizen who, in the performance of duties or exercise of rights under this Act, willfully or negligently causes loss, damage or injury to another, in a manner that is contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy, shall compensate the latter for the damage incurred. This is without prejudice to other remedies available to the aggrieved party under any other law for the same acts.”

We requested Rep. Antonino to consider adopting the said approach, without prejudice to the House committee taking up the Right of Reply separately to allow its full deliberation, without holding hostage the FOI bill.

But Rep. Antonino would insist on a patently unconstitutional rider to the FOI bill. Clearly, it is intended to throw a monkey wrench to the FOI bill’s passage. He must now feel affirmed by President Aquino’s express support for the right of reply.

My colleague in Action for Economic Reforms, Manuel Buencamino, verbalized in his recent column supporting Rep. Antonino’s right of reply, what in reality has already unfolded. He says, “Let’s have freedom of information and the right of reply. Both or nothing.” Every Filipino’s right to information now falls victim to the administration’s beef with media.

It has to be stressed that FOI is not for the media alone. It is for pensioners who seek to clarify inaccuracies in their service records, for would-be beneficiaries who follow-up on the status of their claims to government services, for students and academics who seek hard-to-obtain government data for their research, for workers and farmers who ask for texts of negotiations and decisions that affect their livelihoods, for ordinary citizens who want to know how their hard-earned taxes are spent by government.

Citizens’ direct access to information — perhaps, there lies the fundamental fear of FOI.

And so we get nothing.

Pop singer Adele has the perfect words for our wake-up call: “But you played it with a beating.”

LIPAT BAHAY, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism’s documentary on the assets of the powerful Ampatuan clan — whose patriarch and scions stand accused as the masterminds of the grisly Maguindanao Massacre — is now available on the PCIJ’s YouTube Channel.

Did you miss its airing on GMANewsTV this evening?

Or do you wish to watch it again?

Just please click this link.

MARY GRACE MORALES lost two loved ones in the Maguindanao Massacre of Nov.23, 2009: her husband Rosell, a reporter for News Focus, and her sister Marites Cablitas, a reporter of radio DxBX.

Grace and family members of the 32 media workers who died in the massacre are complainants in the multiple murder case now pending before a Quezon City trial court against members of the powerful Ampatuan clan.

Of the 196 suspects, only 95 are now in detention (of which only 76 had been arraigned), and over a hundred others remain at large.

The massacre left over 80 children, the majority still in school, orphaned by father or mother who were media workers, and primary breadwinners of their families.

Last week in Bangkok, Grace spoke before members of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand and the Southeast Asian Press Alliance.

What follows are her words, and fervent appeal:

“I am Mary Grace Morales. A mother of three children aged 13, 11, and 8.
“On November 23, 2009, I lost my husband Rosell. My children lost, at their very young age, their loving and responsible father. I also lost my sister Marites Cablitas.

“My sister and my husband were among the 58 persons killed in the Ampatuan Massacre. They were among the 32 journalists who were covering the filing of candidacy of a political leader in the area named Esmael Mangudadatu. On the way to the Election Commission office, they were stopped by more than a hundred armed men and taken to a hill where two pits had already been dug using a backhoe.

“All 58 persons in the convoy were brutally murdered. Some of the bodies were buried in the pits, together with three of the eight vehicles they rode.

“When I heard about the massacre aired on different radio stations, at first I could not believe it was true. I took my children with me to the house of my sister because I did not want them to know what had happened.

“The massacre has caused excruciating pain and dilemma. At first, I was in denial. I could not accept what had happened. Losing two persons close to me in that massacre is really hard.

“But I knew I had to be strong and keep my wits intact – to be able to take care of my family, as well as to fight whoever was behind the brutal massacre.

“Many of the families of the victims find it difficult to sustain any kind of livelihood. Most of those who died were breadwinners, and those they left behind are ordinary housewives with no work experience.

One is a 67-year-old grandmother who suddenly found herself saddled with six grandchildren to feed.

Another is a young wife who was six months pregnant at the time of the massacre and who is, until now, afraid of what will happen to the future of her three children.

There are so many children still struggling to live after the loss of their parents.

“Together with the other victims’ families, we filed a case against the perpetrators of this brutal and barbaric act. We want those responsible to pay for their crime.

“I cannot understand, however, why, until now, the masterminds have not yet been convicted, almost three years after the incident. In fact, most of them have not even been arraigned yet. Almost half of the 196 accused have not been arrested.

“While it appears that the Philippine government is trying to help us reach a speedy solution of the case, I still feel extremely frustrated. Just recently, the Supreme Court reversed its decision and disallowed the live media coverage of the trial.

“Our enemy is very powerful. Many members of their clan continue to hold government positions. We, the families of the victims, are nobodies against the powerful Ampatuans.

“We do not have the resources to fight them. Every legal move entails money. And campaigning to keep public awareness of the issue high also entails expenses. We are grateful for the assistance that we have received from groups like the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists and the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines.

“By bringing the issue to you, the international community, we are hoping that you can help us find justice. We believe that the international media community can help by taking a more comprehensive action and continue to give strength to the families of the victims of the Ampatuan massacre, of other extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances.

“November 23 is the International Day to End Impunity. I come to you with a plea from my heart, bringing to you the cries of our children on the sudden loss of their loved ones, our loved ones, who had bright plans for the future but were curtailed by the bullets of the Ampatuans.

“We cry for justice. Your support gives us hope. Your prayers keep us strong.” – PCIJ, November 2012

IF ANDAL AMPATUAN SR. and his sons ruled Maguindanao as if they owned the province, perhaps it was because they really owned a sizeable chunk of it – and parts of Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao City, and Makati City as well.

Andal Sr. and his sons Andal Jr. and Zaldy Ampatuan, officials who hail from one of the poorest provinces in the country, own close to five million square meters of property scattered throughout Maguindanao, Cotabato, Davao, and even in ritzy Dasmariñas Village in Makati, according to records in the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 22, where there is a pending civil forfeiture case against the Ampatuan properties.

If that figure is a little difficult to imagine for Filipino families who make do with 20 to 40 square meters of floor area, think in terms of this: Five million square meters is the equivalent of five square kilometers or 500 hectares of land.

By comparison, San Juan City in Metro Manila, according to the local government’s website, is all of 5.5 square kilometers, or just slightly bigger than the Ampatuans’ combined real property assets.

Overall, it’s not a bad deal for a family that claims to just live off the land. Andal Sr., after all, styles himself as a simple farmer, albeit one of royal lineage because of his datu heritage.

But if government prosecutors are to be believed, Andal Ampatuan Sr. may have gone a little too far in finding a patch of soil to plant his crops.

Last December, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), a government superbody tasked with investigating suspicious bank transactions and money laundering activities, secured a provisional asset preservation order (PAPO) or a freeze order against all the known Ampatuan properties from the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 22.

The PAPO covers 224 bank accounts, 77 vehicles, 110 firearms, and 161 pieces of real properties allegedly owned or controlled by Andal Ampatuan Sr.’s branch of the clan. The PAPO, granted by Executive Judge Marino dela Cruz, prohibits the sale, transfer, or disposition of these properties while his court hears the civil forfeiture case filed by the AMLC against the Ampatuan clan’s assets.

The 161 pieces of real property ordered frozen by the court altogether come up to 5,002,656 square meters of land owned mostly by the three Ampatuan principals along with a few of their associates. The list of frozen real properties gives us a glimpse of just how extensive the economic clout of the clan has become, reaching far beyond the boundaries of Maguindanao province.

And by all indications, this is just the initial list, as the AMLC has hinted that it is still looking for more documents that would link other suspected properties to the Ampatuan clan. And the sad fact is, the government, three years after the Maguindanao Massacre, has yet to finish its inventory of the assets of the Ampatuans.

Part 2 and Sidebar 2 of our report are now online.