Netizens unite: Pass FOI now, curb misuse of people’s money

LET’S HEAR it from Netizens.

In a joint statement on Friday, Netizens writing for various blog networks pledged their support and gigabytes to the growing multi-sectoral clamor for the immediate passage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill, before the 15th Congress packs up and goes.

Ten senior bloggers who signed the statement that was read at the press conference of the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition called on the members of the House of Representatives to “pass the FOI bill NOW… without delay and distraction.”

The bloggers raised three arguments for the FOI’s immediate passage, notably:

* The bill “breathes life into the constitutional mandate of transparency and accountability… and compels the Government to fulfill a promise that has persistently been broken.”

* The bill “enables the people to be vigilant over the use of public funds,” and upholds “(our) right to guard our taxes — The People’s Money — against theft and wasteful spending.”

* The bill “assures faster, more reliable delivery of basic and essential information for its citizens — guaranteeing access to public documents that affect our lives — whether these affect private lives or properties, or whether these affect public policy.”

The FOI bill must pass, they said, without need for a right-of-reply (RoR) provision “that imposes a chilling effect on responsible citizens otherwise eager to speak truth or facts without the burden of harassment by politicians who wield awesome influence or resources.”

Citing libel laws, self-regulation policies in place in media agencies, and “the Terms of Service of individual social media providers,” the Netizens nixed the inclusion of an RoR clause in the FOI bill.

“The push now for Right of Reply is designed, in great part, to minimize the impact of FOI on the forthcoming elections, even though it is during electoral campaigns when discussion of public matters is most urgent and vital,” the Netizens said.

Here is the full text of the Netizens’ statement:

Statement On the Immediate Passage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act
18 January 2013

WE, Netizens of the Philippines, call on the House of Representatives to pass the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill NOW.

First, the FOI breathes life into the constitutional mandate of transparency and accountability of our Government. It compels the Government to fulfill a promise that has persistently been broken.

Second, the FOI Bill enables the people to be vigilant over the use of public funds with further guarantees of transparency and oversight. We have the right to guard our taxes — The People’s Money — against theft and wasteful spending.

Third, the FOI Bill assures faster, more reliable delivery of basic and essential information for its citizens — guaranteeing access to public documents that affect our lives — whether these affect private lives or properties, or whether these affect public policy.

The FOI Bill needs to pass without delay or distraction.

We, the Netizens, further call on the Congress to pass the FOI Bill without a right-of-reply (RoR) rider that is so inconsistent with the Constitution:

a) It imposes a chilling effect on responsible citizens otherwise eager to speak truth or facts without the burden of harassment by politicians who wield awesome influence or resources.

b) There already exist constitutional measures designed to counteract defamatory expression concerning public officials or matters, such as the laws and jurisprudence on libel, the Terms of Service of individual social media providers, or the policies of self-regulatory bodies of press organizations.

c) The push now for Right of Reply is designed, in great part, to minimize the impact of FOI on the forthcoming elections, even though it is during electoral campaigns when discussion of public matters is most urgent and vital.

As such we Netizens, call on the Members of Congress who have pledged to support and pass the FOI Bill to do so NOW.

We Netizens ask the public to join us in urging that the FOI Bill be passed now.

Signed by:

Noemi Lardizabal -Dado (@momblogger), Blog Watch
Cocoy Dayao, (@cocoy), Democracy.Net.PH
Francis Acero, (@francisacero), Democracy.Net.PH
Oliver Reyes (@ageofbrillig), Democracy.Net.Ph
Pierre Tito Galla, (@jesterinexile), Democracy.Net.PH
Cecille Soria,(@ceso), Democracy.Net.PH
Jane Uymatiao (@philippinebeat), Blog Watch
Juned Sonido (@juned),,Democracy.Net.PH , Baratillo Pamphlet
Angelo Louise Lopez (@GeloLopez) , Blog Watch
Oliver Robillo, @blogie, BlogPress.ph

Are these lascivious?

That’s the question lawyer Harry Roque posed to the Supreme Court justices to underscore the dangers of the Cybercrime Law. He referred to the three photos posted here:



There were a number of compelling issues that were highlighted in last Tuesday’s oral arguments on the Cybercrime Law (R.A. 10175) at the Supreme Court. One was its being unconstitutional because of overbreath as forwarded by Atty. Harry. Roque.

The online Free Dictionary explains that “In American jurisprudence, the overbreadth doctrine is primarily concerned with facial challenges to laws under the First Amendment.”

The First Amendment (to the United States Constitution) “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”

Roque cited Section 4 (C)1 of the Cybercrime Law which is about Cybersex which lists among punishable acts Cybersex.

The law defined cybersex as “The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.”

Using the “void for vagueness” doctrine, Roque asked, “What is defamatory? Who is liable for libel? What are justifiable motives? What are good intentions? What is lascivious?”

Then he presented acclaimed works of art with nude figures from the Museum of Modern Arts (New York), Tate Gallery in London, and Sydney Opera House, asking the justices , “Are these slides lascivious?’
Roque noted that the Cybercrime Law didn’t even use the word “pornography.”

Another argument against the Cybercrime Law was the unconstitutionality of the libel provision.

Also included in the list of punishable acts is Libel . Section 4C (4) of the law states “The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.”

Roque pointed out the judgment of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that in the case of Alexander Adonis who was imprisoned for two years for libel that the penalty of imprisonment is incompatible Article 19 of the ICCPR which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.

The Philippines has signed and ratified the ICCPR.

Asked by Carpio what happens when a government ratifies an international treaty, Roque replied, “It becomes part of domestic law.”

Carpio noted that the Cybercrime Law may be unconstitutional since it adopted the libel provision of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which may no longer be in conformance with Supreme Court decisions and international law.

Amended petition vs Cybercrime law underscores unconstitutionality of libel

Anti-Cybercrime law rally at Supreme Court Oct 2012. Photo by Mario Ignacio of VERA Files.

Last week, we amended our petition against the Cybercrimes Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A 10175) to have it declared wholly as unconstitutional.

Please click here for:

Amended Petition

“We” refers to our group VERA Files and fellow petitioners namely Davao-based radio broadcaster radio broadcaster Alexander Adonis, lawyers/bloggers Harry Roque, Romel Bagares, and Gilbert Andres, legal officer of Media Defense Southeast Asia.

Our earlier petition filed last Sept 28 asked the Court to declare only the provision of the Cybercrimes Prevention Law on libel as being unconstitutional. In our amended petition, we asked the Supreme Court to expressly declare Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code providing for the crime of libel also to be unconstitutional.

As explained by our lawyers, Harry Roque and Romel Bagares of The Center for International Law and the Southeast Asia Media Defense, “We’ve had to clarify that pursuant to the View of the UN Human Rights Committee in Adonis vs. Republic of the Philippines, libel under the Revised Penal Code is contrary to freedom of expression. In its annual report this year on the Philippines, the UN Human Rights Committee also decried that instead of complying with this view and repeal Art 355 of the RPC, the Philippines even expanded the coverage of libel through the Cybercrime Prevention Act.”

Roque said, “It is important to have both libel under the RPC and under the new law be declared as illegal. Prior to the amended petition, the petition only asked the Court to indirectly declare the ordinary crime of libel as unconstitutional by implication. Since Art. 355 was reproduced by way of reference in the definition of electronic libel with the additional element that it should have been published electronically, it is incumbent for the Court to also consider the issue of whether ordinary libel is constitutional. The amended petition was necessary since the law does not favor implied declarations of unconstitutionality.”

Our petition is one of the 15 filed against the Cybercrime law signed by President Aquino on Sept. 13, 2012. The Supreme Court issued a 120-day temporary restraining order on the implementation of the law that has generated widespread concern on its effect on basic freedoms. The High Court has scheduled oral arguments on Jan. 15.

Our petition stressed on the human rights issue of the law especially the provision on libel. Our co-petitioner Adonis was imprisoned for three years after he was convicted for libel in a suit filed by former House Speaker Prospero Nograles.

Nograles brought the suit against Adonis in 2001 over a radio report citing newspaper accounts that the congressman was seen running naked in a Manila hotel shortly after the husband of a woman he was allegedly having an affair with caught them in bed.

Adonis was sentenced to four years and six months in prison.

With the help of Atty. Roque, he questioned his imprisonment for libel as a violation of his right to free expression and brought it to the UN Human Rights Committee, which declared that criminal libel in the Philippines conflicts with the country’s obligations under Art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

According to the United Nations, Philippine criminal libel is contrary to Art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because it is disproportionate to the ends that it seeks, that is, the protection of privacy of private individuals; and that there are an alternative in the form of civil libel.

Roque said those whose right to privacy may be violated by the media after criminal libel is declared unconstitutional or repealed by a law of Congress can still have recourse to a civil case for damages and recourse to the media’s self-regulating mechanisms such as the Philippine Press Institute for the print media and the Kapisanan ng Brodkasters ng Pilipinas for radio and television.

Our petition against the Cybercrime Prevention Act is the only petition that challenges the constitutionality of libel law in the country. Roque said: “We’re excited to argue this issue since we believe that there are now changed circumstances to warrant a reversal of previous Supreme Court decisions upholding the legality of libel. Some of these include our ratification of the ICCPR itself and the View of the UN Human Rights Committee.”

BIR files charges vs. another Ampatuan lawyer

THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE slapped yet another lawyer linked to the controversial Ampautan clan with tax evasion charges, the second such lawyer to be charged for the same offence in just two months.

Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares identified the lawyer as Atty. Redemberto R. Villanueva, who was found by the BIR to have a total tax liability of P 37 million pesos for the years 2010 and 2011.

Key to the tax case against Villanueva is his purchase of a large house in ritzy Dasmarinas Village, Makati for P 58.47 million in 2010, Henares said. Henares said the BIR finds it strange that Villanueva could afford to buy such a house when he only paid P110,788 in income taxes for the same year. Henares said the income tax that Villanueva paid for that year was far out of proportion to the amount of money he spent for the purchase of the house in Dasmarinas.

“We looked at the expenditure method,” Henares said. “If you have all that money to spend, then you generated an income for that year.”

Interestingly, the house in question has been placed under a provisional asset preservation order or PAPO by a Manila court, after it was included by the Anti Money Laundering Council as among the assets allegedly belonging to former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, who is one of the accused in the 2009 Maguindanao Massacre.

zaldy house

The AMLC claims that the Dasmarinas property is one of at least 162 properties illegally acquired by members of the Ampatuan clan using government funds. The AMLC had also filed a forfeiture case against other assets in the name of Atty. Villanueva, in the belief that Villanueva was holding these assets for Zaldy Ampatuan.

Sources of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism had also revealed that the Dasmarinas property was regularly used by Zaldy Ampatuan whenever he traveled to Manila.

In addition to the Dasmarinas property, Henares said Villanueva purchased a parking slot for the Eisenhower condominium in San Juan for half a million pesos in 2010. This was unusual, since Villanueva would not buy a condominium unit in the same building until the next year, Henares said. It was only in 2011 when Villanueva would buy a condo unit in Eisenhower for P2.56 million.

Also in 2011, Villanueva bought another property in Eastwood Lafayette for P 2.62 million. Yet while he had the money to purchase these two condominium units, Villanueva would only pay income tax of P 3,723 for that same year, Henares said.

All in all, Villanueva has  a tax liability of P 36.93 million for those two years, she added.

Henares said that the BIR was not targetting Ampatuan lawyers, as the Bureau is not even certain if Villanueva is representing the Ampatuans in any of the court cases. However, she acknowledged that the investigation into Villanueva was triggered by reports that he was responsible for purchasing the Dasmarinas house for the Ampatuans.

“That was what triggered the investigation, that it was his (Ampatuan’s) house, and that there was a sale, and a sale was made to the lawyer,” Henares said. “Pag nagbayad naman ng tamang buwis ang abugado, wala namang problema. Ang problema, pag hindi nagrereport ng tamang income na sapat para bilhin ang bahay na ito.”

(If the lawyer had only paid the right taxes, there wouldn’t be a problem. The problem is that he did not report the correct income sufficient to make the purchase.)

Villanueva was the second lawyer linked to the Ampatuans to be charged for tax evasion by the BIR.

Earlier in December, the BIR also filed tax evasion charges against Atty. Arnel Manaloto after it found that the income taxes paid by Manaloto were inconsistent with his purchase of 8 properties previously owned by former Datu Unsay Mayor Andal Ampatuan Junior. The PCIJ earlier reported that Manaloto purchased the eight properties from Andal Jr for P 20 million.

Manaloto is a lawyer for Andal Jr. in some of his cases. More interestingly, the eight properties in question were to have been the subject of a civil forfeiture case by the government – until Manaloto bought them from his client.

Will Aquino use his political clout for the FOI bill?

Thanks to Interaksyun for this photo.

With a commanding popularity, hardly dented by controversies and bungling, President Aquino’s push makes a lot of difference in passing the most difficult legislations.

We have seen it in the last few weeks.

His certification of the Reproductive Health bill as urgent last week facilitated the passage of the measure which was vigorously opposed by the intimidating Catholic Church.

A few weeks ago, Congress also passed the Sin Tax Reform bill which cigarette and alcoholic drinks companies, with huge lobby money, were blocking.

Those two bills which had always suffered the fate of Mona Lisa dreamers (“They just lie there and they die there” ) now just need the signature of the President to become laws.

With the Sin Tax reform measure, the government expects to collect P40 billion in additional revenues which will be used in the improvement hospitals and health facilities nationwide, providing more health services especially in the rural areas which are also expected to result in healthier Filipinos.

Health experts say that increase in prices of cigarettes and alcoholic drinks, which is the logical effect of higher taxes, would decrease number of smokers by 27 percent.

That would also translate to healthier Filipinos. “This is bigger than the revenue we will be earning from the tax. This is our biggest win,” said Dr. Antonio Dans of the UP College of Medicine, one of the active proponents of the Sin Tax Reform measure together with Dr. Tony Leachon, consultant of the Department of Health on Noncommunicable Diseases.

When the RH measure becomes a law, more and more Filipinos would be empowered to plan their families because there would be easier access to information, materials, and opportunities.

It goes without saying that a healthy and empowered people would be great asset in the economic development of the country.

With a 78 percent approval and 80 percent trust ratings (Pulse Asia nationwide survey Nov. 23 – 29, 2012), would be expected to be a major influence in the May 2013 elections. Members of Congress, many of whom are running in the May 2013 elections, would be courting trouble antagonizing Aquino.

Now that Aquino had shown his political clout in the Sin Tax reform and RH bills, would he do the same for the Freedom of Information Bill, the first versions of which were filed six congresses ago?

Thanks to Inquirer for this photo.

In his sponsorship speech yesterday, Rep. Lorenzo “Erin” R. Tañada III, appealed to the House leadership to facilitate the enactment of the FOI bill into law.

“Before us is a measure that will institutionalize the substantive and procedural details necessary for the effective operationalization of the people’s right to information, enshrined side by side with the great fundamental guarantees to a free and democratic people in our Bill of Rights.

“Iisa po ang buod ng panukalang batas na ito. Karapatan ng ating mamamayan na malaman kung paano ginagampanan ng pamahalaan at ng mga pinuno at kawani nito ang kapangyarihang ipinagkatiwala sa kanya ng taong-bayan, at kung paano nito pinangangalagaan ang kaban ng bayan na nagmula sa pawis at pagod ng mamamayan.

“Totoo po, sinasabi sa mga desisyon ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman na ang karapatan sa impormasyon na ginagaratiyahan sa ika-pitong seksyon ng Article 3 ng ating Saligang Batas ay maaaring hingin ng mamayan kahit walang kalakip na batas ng Kongreso na magpapatupad nito. Subalit sa pang-araw araw na karanasan ng mamamayan, hindi ito sapat upang masiguro ang pagtupad nito. Hanggang saan ang saklaw ng mga impormasyong kailangang ibigay? Ano ang alituntunin sa paghingi at pagbibigay ng impormasyon? Kung ang karapatan sa impormasyon ay nilabag, ano ang kaukulang regulasyon at remedyo ng mamayan?”

Tanada said the FOI bill addresses these concerns.

He traced the history of the FOI bill: “This measure is twenty years in the making. The first FOI bills were filed as far back as the 9th Congress in 1992. While it took the FOI bill practically a generation to reach legislative maturation, those years have been a fruitful process of balancing competing norms in FOI.”

He said it is the passage of the bill would not only be “in recognition of the already very long legislative history of painstaking balancing of interests to reach the present broad consensus on its provisions, but also in keeping with our own commitment to contribute to the lasting reform of our governance institutions.”