Category: Access to Information

Pass the FOI bill, PH media tells Congress

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

MEDIA AGENCIES across the Philippines are demanding that Congress take care of “unfinished business”  by passing the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill before going on extended break to prepare for the 2013 midterm elections.

In a pooled editorial published by various national, regional, and local media organizations beginning Monday (January 14), media organizations belonging to the Philippine Press Institute, the national association of newspapers, and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), the national association of broadcasters in the country, called on congressmen to fulfill all the promises they made of transparency and accountability when they campaigned for office in the previous election.

ppi 2

The editorial noted that there will only be nine working days left for Congress when it resumes session on January 21, since it adjourns for an extended break on February 6. After February 6, many legislators are expected to start preparing for their reelection bid in the May 2013 midterm elections.

This allows for a very tight schedule if ever Congress does decide to calendar the FOI bill for floor debates. The measure was approved in the House committee level late last year, and there is no indication yet that the bill will be prioritized by the House leadership.

On the other hand, the Senate has already approved its version of the FOI on third and final reading.

“We, the newspapers, television networks, radio stations, online and independent media agencies, and citizen journalists of this nation state here and clearly now our expectations of the House of Representatives: Get back to work, assure a quorum, pass the FOI bill in your last nine session days,” the pooled editorial read. “You have all promised and sworn to serve by matuwid na daan, transparency, and accountability in government, and we expect nothing less than clear, concrete results on your promises.”

The pooled editorial emphasized that the passage of the FOI bill is “a constitutional obligation” that overrules other “private concerns” by legislators that the measure could be abused by media.

Several legislators have been trying to block passage of the FOI by insisting on a rider that provides for a right-of-reply (ROR), where officials are to be guaranteed free and equal print and airtime to give their side on an issue. The Philippine media has insisted that the ROR provision violates the freedom of the press, since it effectively legislates editorial content.

“Lawmakers that they are, they must be well aware of the Constitutional principle of “a public office is a public trust,” the very reason why the news media and all citizens must pry and probe, critique and censure, and report news good and bad about issues and events vested with public interest,” the editorial read.

The pooled editorial is just part of a series of actions programmed by media organizations all over the country to remind legislators of the importance of the FOI. Media groups are concerned that the non-passage of the FOI in the last nine session days would mean the bill would go back to square one with the incoming 16th Congress.

The pooled editorial published by members of the PPI and the KBP reads as follows:

Pass the FOI bill now

QUICK and correct action. This is the best and justly deserved path for the House of Representatives to take on the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill.

Slow and wrong. This is the worst and justly reasonable judgment that Filipino voters would have of the House members, most especially of those seeking reelection in May 2013, should the FOI fail to pass.

Time, the dribble drivel in the House, and an Executive seemingly less than lame in his support for the bill – the odds seem stacked against the passage of the FOI bill in the 15th Congress. This is even as the Senate had passed its version of the bill on third and final reading before Christmas last.

Only nine session days remain from Jan. 21, when lawmakers return to work after a month-long holiday break, to Feb. 6, 2013, after which lawmakers will have another extended break and plunge into election campaign mode. They will have just three more session days in June intended mainly for closing ceremonies, before adjourning sine die to give way to the incoming 16th Congress on June 30, 2013.

Failure by the incumbent House to pass the FOI up to third reading, so it could be submitted to bicameral action thereafter, in the coming nine session days is certain death for the bill in the 15th Congress. Legislative work on the bill will revert to step one yet again in the 16th.

This is why only quick, focused action to pass the FOI bill is the absolutely correct path for the 280-odd members of the House to take, in their last nine session days before the election campaign kicks off.

It avoids wasteful spending of scarce taxpayers’ money on legislative work that often start and end as mere verbal jousts among lawmakers.

It is, most assuredly, also the right thing for the House to do.

The FOI bill implements the state policy of transparency and accountability that the Constitution we Filipinos ratified in 1987 explicitly and fully guarantees.

Passing the FOI bill is thus a constitutional obligation that lawmakers have had to fulfill, to do right by all citizens, from 25 years ago.

Passing the FOI bill is a public good that trumps any and all supposed private concerns that a few lawmakers claim are the reasons why they do not favor FOI and insist on loading it up with right-of-reply (ROR) provision. They have had, they say, fallen victim to negative reporting by the news media.

Lawmakers that they are, they must be well aware of the Constitutional principle of “a public office is a public trust,” the very reason why the news media and all citizens must pry and probe, critique and censure, and report news good and bad about issues and events vested with public interest.

Libel laws, codes of ethics, and self-regulation mechanisms are fully observed in most news media agencies. There are no reasons that are writ in law for these few lawmakers opposed to the FOI to now dangle ROR as a precondition to their vote. In this instance, it is clear that to them, ROR is truly just a monkey wrench to kill the bill.

We, the newspapers, television networks, radio stations, online and independent media agencies, and citizen journalists of this nation state here and clearly now our expectations of the House of Representatives: Get back to work, assure a quorum, pass the FOI bill in your last nine session days.

You have all promised and sworn to serve by matuwid na daan, transparency, and accountability in government, and we expect nothing less than clear, concrete results on your promises.

It is election season once more and you are all likely to offer more promises to get elected. But before we vote, we ask you to finish your unfinished business. Start with one you swore to deliver two decades and a half ago: Pass the FOI bill now.

 

Here are screengrabs of some of the news organizations that published the pooled editorial:

Philippine Star

malaya 1

Sunstar Davao

Standard Today

For its part, the Manila Times ran its own editorial last January 11 stating that it has not yet given up on the FOI bill. The Times said the Aquino administration and Congress should “realize by this time” that the Philippine media was not giving up easily on the FOI. “We still want to see the act passed into law despite misinformed parties like House Minority Leader Danila Suarez promising to block the bill at all cost.

“We consider the right to access government records as important as any right guaranteed by our Constitution,” the Times editorial read. “Democracy without transparency in government and its institutions is no democracy at all.”

Manila Times

It’s touch-go for FOI in House; Coalition mounts final push

mcmangahas Leave a comment

WHAT’S UP with the Freedom of Information bill?

It’s in a touch-go situation still in the House of Representatives.

Whether it will fly or die in the 15th Congress will be known in the next four weeks, or in the next nine session days of the House from January 21 to February 6, 2013.

Want to help save and push the FOI bill into law? Read on


Final push for the passage of the FOI Bill: Update on Status

By Atty. Nepomuceno Malaluan
Co-Convenor, Right to Know. Right Now! Coalition and
Co-Director, Institute for Freedom of Information

A. Legislative Status of the FOI Bill

• The Senate has already passed the FOI bill on Second Reading (11 Dec 2012) and Third Reading (17 December). Thus it only awaits the passage of the counterpart measure from the House of Representatives, before a bicameral conference can be convened to harmonize any disagreeing provisions between the Senate and House versions.

• At the House of Representatives, a committee report has been submitted to the House plenary for action. The next step will be for the formal sponsorship of the committee report by the Committee Chairman (Rep. Ben Evardone) and co-sponsorship by interested authors. After sponsorship, the measure will undergo a period of interpellation and then a period of amendments, before it is put to a vote on Second Reading. If the bill is favorably voted on Second Reading, it will again be put to a vote on Third (final) Reading, after a minimum 3 days after copy of the bill passed on Second Reading has been distributed to members. A certification by the President to the necessity of its immediate enactment dispenses of the minimum 3 days of copy circulation.

• Only nine session days remain when Congress resumes session on January 21. After this it will adjourn for elections, and resume for only 3 days in June for the closing ceremonies of the term of the 15th Congress.


B. Malacañang Version was Adopted in Full by Senate and House Committee

• In early 2011, the President organized a Study Group on the FOI bill led by Undersecretary Manolo Quezon, with DBM Secretary Florencio Abad also taking an active role in the Study Group’s work. The Study Group intended to address concerns raised by the President and executive agencies, revolving around the adequacy of protection of national security matters and the President’s executive privilege. They also addressed concerns by sections of the bureaucracy over the gravity of the penal provisions.

• In January 2012, Secretary Manolo Quezon III announced that the President has approved the Malacañang Version embodying their proposed amendments. In early February Secretary Abad transmitted the Malacañang Version to Congress.

• The amendments proposed by Malacañang have been adopted fully in the bill passed by the Senate, as well as in the Committee Report approved by the House Committee and now awaiting plenary action. The key Malacañang amendments include:

a. Expansion of the national security exception by inserting the words “national security” in exception (a). The working version of Congress confined the national security exception to defense and foreign affairs. Inserting the words “national security” gives the Chief Executive greater flexibility in the determination of what information may be kept secret by reason of national security concerns.

b. Introduction of a new exception relating to the President’s presidential communications privilege (or what is more popularly know as “executive privilege”).

c. To address the concerns of the bureaucracy over the gravity of the penal provisions, most of the offenses have been reclassified as administrative offenses. Also, Malacañang introduced a section making good faith on the part of public officials a defense for unlawful denial of information.

d. Malacañang also introduced a number of changes on the list of documents for mandatory publication (posting in websites), including the SALNs of top government officials. They also introduced a number of amendments on the record-keeping standards and publication requirements of laws.

e. The Study Group agreed to a number of balancing amendments proposed by advocates to address possible government abuse of the exceptions. In addition to the reiteration of the jurisprudence that the burden of proving an exception lies with government, it added the following qualifications: the exceptions are to be strictly construed; the exceptions cannot be used to cover-up a crime, wrongdoing, graft, or corruption; the President, the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Constitutional Commissions may waive an exception when they deem that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. (The Senate also added a judicial public interest override consistent with existing jurisprudence.)

• Any other changes made by the Senate and the House Committee were non-controversial, and respected and kept intact all amendments proposed by Malacañang.

C. Challenges to Passing the Measure in the House of Representatives

• What we though would have been a smooth legislative process after Malacañang’s endorsement of its version (legislative work was suspended for a time to await the result of the work of the President’s Study Group) did not materialize, however. A major obstacle was the lack of cooperation from the House committee chairman, who postponed a number of committee hearings resulting in delays. Also, the non-mention of FOI in the President’s third SONA was regarded by the Committee Chairman as a signal that the bill is not really among the President’s priorities.

• Still, the bill still has a fighting chance of getting passed in the current Congress, given that the Senate version has been approved and there remains time, however short, for the House to take action in the remaining nine session days.

• Even without the President’s certification, the House Committee on Rules, through the Majority Leader, is empowered to declare a bill urgent, and to set the number of days or hours to be allotted for the consideration of the bill in plenary, and when vote on the bill shall be taken. Rule X (Bills, Resolutions, Messages, Memorials and Petitions), Section 52, reads:

“Urgent Bills and Resolutions. – The Committee on Rules, through the Majority Leader, may declare a bill or resolution urgent and consider it in accordance with a timetable. The timetable, prepared by the Committee on Rules, shall fix the date when the bill or resolution must be reported by the committee concerned, the number of days or hours to be allotted to the consideration of the bill or resolution in plenary session, and the date and hour debate must be concluded and final vote taken.”

• Concededly, however, there are a number of obstacles that need to be addressed: the problem with quorum as election nears; the remaining lack of political commitment on the part of the House leadership to pass the measure (which translates also to an uncooperative Committee chairman who is tacked to defend the bill in plenary); the existence of a House faction resisting the bill on the argument that it will be prone to abuse by media and citizens (the “right of reply” proponents).

• In relation to the right of reply issue, one of its vocal proponents (Rep. Rodolfo Antonino), insists on making a provision on right of reply a rider to the FOI bill. Under his proposed provision, whenever there is material published in any media based on information obtained under FOI, any person mentioned in the publication is given the right to have a reply published in equivalent space, under pain of fines and even closure for refusal to do so.

• The advocates have opposed this right of reply rider to the FOI bill as patently unconstitutional, infringing on the freedom of speech and of the press. It intrudes into the editorial prerogatives over clearly protected speech/expression. The advocates appeal instead that the right of reply be tackled in a separate measure (there are separate right of reply bills in both Senate and House) to allow for full-blown discussion among stakeholders without holding hostage the passage of the FOI bill.

• In addition, the Senate version has adopted a provision already addressing the fears of citizen/media abuse of FOI, which is supported by advocates. The authors of the bill in the House intend to adopt a similar provision. Section 20 of the FOI bill approved by the Senate reads:

“SEC. 20. 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.

• All things considered, advocates believe that the insistence on a right of reply rider is really a monkey wrench to passing the FOI bill by politicians who are really opposed to the FOI bill per se.

D. Final Push for the Bill in the 15th Congress

• The FOI champions in the House are determined to make a final and determined push for the passage of the FOI bill in the House in the remaining nine days. But they need visible support from all sectors, directed at convincing the House leadership, and the President as well, to make the passage of the FOI bill a priority when session resumes on January 21.

• We call on friends and allies of the campaign, and those who support the passage of the bill, to monitor the events on FOI in the coming 4 weeks. We ask for support for campaign initiatives, such as through media coverage, attending House sessions, and directly asking members of the House for their support.

• We encourage everyone to speak on FOI in all platforms (print, broadcast, online and social media). Be heard on FOI!

Filers, watchdogs brainstorm with COMELEC on new rules

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

by Che de los Reyes

The May 13, 2013 midterm elections could turn out to be different from all elections past. At least, as far as enforcing campaign finance rules is concerned.

Based on recent issuances and pronouncements by the highest officials of the Commission on Elections, campaign finance regulation – a task that COMELEC only gave token observance to in the past – will now be receiving serious attention from the Commission.

On June 22, 2012, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9476 or the “Rules and Regulations Governing Campaign Finance and Disclosure in Connection with the 13 May 2013 National and Local Elections and Subsequent Elections Thereafter.” The resolution mandated the creation of a Campaign Finance Unit, whose sole function is to look into the contributions and spending of candidates and political parties and enforce the laws on campaign finance.

And then in October 2012, COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes himself announced that the 2013 elections would be the first in which the Commission would be seriously looking into the issue of campaign finance.

But even with the the commitment of its officials and the new Campaign Finance Rules in place, COMELEC is still facing the enormous challenge of educating candidates, political parties, and service providers, as well as election watchdogs and the media on its new campaign finance policy.

And then there is the question of whether the Commission would be able to muster the necessary resources and capability to monitor candidates’ spending and contributions, much less audit them.

It is a task that just might prove too unwieldy for COMELEC to go it alone. Not without the buy-in and assistance of the relevant stakeholders.

This fact is not lost on the officials of the Commission, who had started engaging various campaign finance stakeholders in recent months. Last Dec. 19, 2012 for instance, the COMELEC engaged not only the candidates, political parties, contractors, and service providers — those who are expected to file campaign spending reports — but also other government agencies, election watchdogs, and members of the media.

cf1

 

 

In the forum and workshop sponsored by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), more than 50 stakeholders focused on identifying the gaps in enforcement of, and compliance with, the Campaign Finance Rules, and how each sector could better assist the Commission in these areas.

The workshop of the ‘Filers,’ which included representatives of major political parties and coalitions such as the Nacionalista Party, Nationalist People’s Coalition, and United Nationalist Alliance; party list groups such as AGHAM and Kabataan Party List; the sales and legal departments of ABS-CBN 2 and GMA 7; and media/advertising agencies  such as Campaigns & Grey — yielded concrete recommendations on how the COMELEC could still improve on the Campaign Finance Rules.

Meanwhile, the workshop of the ‘Monitors and Rapporteurs’ involved representatives of media organizations such as the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), the Philippine Press Institute (PPI), and Interaksyon; election monitors and election reform advocates such as the National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL), Consortium on Electoral Reforms/Institute for Political and Electoral Reforms (CER/IPER); academe such as the Association of Schools of Public Administration of the Philippines (ASPAP), citizens’ groups such as the Freedom of Information Youth Initiative, and government agencies such as the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

Recommendations by the filers covered such areas as political advertising, reporting requirements, transparency and disclosure, and imposition of taxes on donations. The monitors and rapporteurs meanwhile, recommended concrete ways on how the sector could better assist COMELEC in improving enforcement and compliance with the Campaign Finance Rules and how to disseminate these. The sector’s recommendations also covered improving transparency and disclosure of campaign finance information, as well as a number of legislative reforms that would directly or indirectly impact on campaign finance.

cf2

The points identified however, were not only directed at COMELEC. The workshop participants also set goals and identified initiatives that they committed to pursue as a sector in order to improve compliance with Campaign Finance Regulations.

The filers, for instance, said they will be pursuing initiatives to better appreciate the letter and intent of campaign finance laws on accounting of campaign funds. These include organizing briefing sessions for media agencies and networks on campaign finance rules and implementation. The media executives meanwhile, volunteered to brief the COMELEC on the process or industry practice of placing ads.

Another initiative that the sector committed to do is to conduct consultations within the advertising industry because of different setups among advertising agencies (i.e., creative agency only; media agency only; unbundled full service agency with both creative and media). According to the sector, it is also important to identify which among the above agencies would be responsible for filing the necessary reports to COMELEC.

Meanwhile, the election monitors and rapporteurs committed to create a group specifically tasked to monitor compliance with the Campaign Finance Rules and draft a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for monitors to initiate prosecution of violators. The sector also said it would involve the public more in discussions about campaign finance.

 

Should gov’t officials disclose their taxes, too?

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

PUBLIC OFFICIALS in the Philippines are required by law to publicly disclose their income and their assets. But since that rule is seldom ever followed, then perhaps government should as well disclose the taxes paid by government officials.

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) founding director and Tony Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism director Sheila Coronel poses this proposal in her latest story in her investigative journalism blog Watchdog-Watcher.

Coronel argues that since government officials are supposed to set a good example for tax compliance, and since they are required to publicly declare their income anyway, then it follows that officials should also tell the public how much they pay in taxes. This is to show the public that government officials pay the right taxes. As well, this allows the public to cross-check their tax declarations against their declared income.

“Because they (officials) decide how the burden of tax payments is shared, then citizens should be told whether those they elect to office are carrying their fair share of that burden,” Coronel writes. “There can be persuasive arguments as to why heads of state, Cabinet ministers, and members of national legislatures should declare their taxes.”

Coronel adds that the disclosure of tax data could serve as an anti-corruption tool which was the case in Pakistan after the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIRP) published its 70-page booklet, revealing that two-thirds of Pakistan MPs “were not even registered taxpayers and therefore had no (National Tax Numbers).”

Read Sheila’s blog here.

Sereno y Carpio: UP clams up for the chief, tales of Megatron

mcmangahas Leave a comment

IN PCIJ’s analysis, the biggest obstacles to achieving full transparency in the high court seem to be its top two officials: Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno and Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio.

The two were among the seven who did not respond to PCIJ’s clarificatory letters but whose SALNs invite the biggest questions of all.

In Sereno’s case, what happened seems to be either indifference or diffidence to PCIJ’s request for asset records she had filed in previous years that only she can actually decide on now. The matter has been awaiting Sereno’s action since last month.

It all started with PCIJ submitting a request last September with the University of the Philippines for copies of SALNs that Sereno had filed as a professor with the UP College of Law form 1996 to 2002. The documents are on file with the UP Human Resources Development Office.

But instead of releasing Sereno’s SALNs, the premiere state university, which is usually jealous of its academic freedom and avowedly as zealous about good governance, rushed to the Court en banc for an opinion.

According to UP President Alfredo Pascual, it was the advice of UP’s lawyers to get clearance from the high court before releasing Sereno’s SALNs in light of the high court’s Guidelines on the release of the justices’ SALNs.

Here’s the thing: the Guidelines, which clearly refer to SALNs of justices and judges, were issued in 2012, or 10 years after Sereno had filed her last SALN with UP as a law professor.

Last month, the en banc tossed the issue to the Office of the Chief Justice so Sereno herself could decide on it. So far, she has yet to take action in favor of transparency.

Carpio’s refusal to deal with what PCIJ found were apparent disparities in his SALNs, meanwhile, is totally inconsistent with his declaration that a new era of transparency had come upon the high court, when he became acting chief justice.

PCIJ’s clarificatory letter to Carpio raised the following concerns:

* His 2011 SALN lists the total amount of personal properties at P54,241,220.00, but PCIJ’s computation of the 23 properties that he declared he owns amounted to P58,425,914.00. There seems to be a difference of P4,184,694.00, which should make his total net worth P84,079,719.57 and not P79,895,025.57 as he said in his 2011 SALN.

* Carpio’s latest SALN enrolled assets worth P4,184,694.00, P552,500.00, and P10,000,000.00 representing “insurance” policies. He did not say whether or not these are the face value of his policies or just the premiums he had paid.

According to a tax lawyer, however, it is not exactly correct to say that the face value of one’s insurance policies are one’s assets. These do become assets of the filer’s beneficiaries after the filer would have passed on, says the expert. Interestingly, the amount of one of the policies – P4,184,694.00 – matches the discrepancy between his stated total net worth and PCIJ’s computation.

* The real nature and extent of operations of what Carpio disclosed was his family’s holding firm, Megatron Holdings, Inc. beg more explanation. This became apparent after PCIJ reviewed the corporate records of Megatron at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Megatron had filed certificates of non-operation for several years, yet still it continues to hold office at the offices, before and today, of Carpio’s former law firm, CVC Law, which is also known as “The Firm”. Carpio had reported in his 1992, 1993, 1994 and 2011 SALNs that Megatron’s address was 138 Bunga Extension, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. This is what Carpio has listed to be his residential address as well.

* Megatron’s corporate records, and the CVCLaw’s official website, enroll a different address for the Carpio family’s holding company.?In its 2006 General Information Sheet (GIS), Megatron said it holds office at the “5th Floor, LTA Building, 118 Perea St. Legaspi Village, Makati City, Metro Manila.” This building is owned by the family of former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo.

CVC Law had held office there for a long period of time, or until they moved to the CVC Law Center at the swanky Global City in 2009.

* In its 2010, 2011, and 2012 GIS, Megatron, listed its business address at: “11th Avenue corner 39th Street, Bonifacio Triangle, Global City 1634, Metro Manila.” This is exactly where the five-story CVC Law Center now stands.

To be sure, the amended articles of incorporation in 2001 and other records at the SEC of CVC Law reflected a divestment by Carpio from the law firm that he co-founded, within days after he was appointed associate justice by then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. – PCIJ, December 2012

NOTE: This story was the sidebar to the last part of PCIJ’s special report on “The Wealth of the ‘Gods of Faura.’”