Comments on: Position paper on the proposed Freedom of Information Act

By: jude

jude — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:19:02 +0000

Sir Danny,

General laws can easily bog down by implementation just as policy statements can be lost in meaning by a single provision. Like Section 10 of VFA on detention agreed by US, is superior to the whole article 5 paying lip service to Philippine jurisdiction over US personnel on crime. The arguments of Dr. Nemenzo in September 2008 became prophetic in Smith’s case, if you click on the link on my name.

It is very interesting to see how the proposed FOIA will materialize when it will become a law. No matter the results, journalists have to try the experience so it can be modified to serve its purpose.

Thanks.

Reply: Interesting point. As stated, I share the “non-excitement” of some concerned journalists over the FOIA though I hope that it will not be abused by the powers-that-be and instead maximized by the media in the dissemination of relevant information. I for one am very interested to request confidential data on Martial Law atrocities especially in the early years starting 1972.

For some strange coicidence, I wrote about the VFA in my column article this week for Pinoy Weekly. Do check it out if you have time.

Thank you for sharing the link to Dr. Nemenzo’s article.

By: jude

jude — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:52:19 +0000

Sir Danny,

It is not difficult to return the favor especially for the liberty of posting. I have to thank you for your patience and kindness.

In regard to proposed FOIA, there can be forseen obstacles on the implementation (1) delays or denial that the request is too broad, (2) delays or denial that no information met specific request, information outside specific will not be disclosed, (3) if there is no previous information, the state will not confirm or deny information, (4) various exceptions to information disclosure can easily be used (5) as last resort, executive privilege information can always be invoked like in ZTE/NBN deal, (6) weak oversight by a body (ombudsman) which is in the practice of less disclosure and placed no priority interest on disclosure, (7) no deterrence for obstruction of information, (8) judicial recourse is a lenthy process.

Reply: You’re right, and this partly explains why some concerned journalists and media groups are not that excited about this particular bill. You’re well aware that laws in this country of sorrows are interpreted according to the interests of the powers-that-be. Isn’t it unthinkable, for example (and pardon the digression), that Philippine jurisdiction over a US soldier convicted of rape in our country could be interpreted in such a way that the US would still get jurisdiction over him? The “broadness” of a particular request could either be the fault of the one making the request or a misinterpretation of the government agency. My suggestion to include a specific provision on declassification of information with historical value after a certain period of time could be useful in providing relevant information to the people, but it all boils down to how the entire law will be implemented. All the best!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:27:00 +0000

The rights of the people had been diluted by the State itself when it uses its military against its people. No less than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sees the need for protection of people’s rights when it introduced the writ of habeas data where a person can petition the high court on state information regarding a person, the state purpose and use of such information and the opportunity to correct or destroy wrong information affecting one’s rights.

Does the FOIA address any destructive information that the state might have collected that will adversely effect on person’s life or liberty?

Reply: As proposed, the FOIA does not classify between positive and destructive information. It mainly seeks to put in writing the procedure for requesting information from government agencies. To be honest, we do not need this particular law if government would just simply practice transparency. In terms of implementation, I am afraid that this might even be used as a way to delay or even avoid providing information to the people, particularly journalists.

By the way, I sincerely hope that you would refrain from using someone else’s identity in posting your comments. Judging from your sound analyses, I think you are intelligent enough to know that what you’re doing is identity theft which is both unethical and illegal.

You are more than welcome to post comments in the future, but I hope that you would use your real name next time. Thank you.

By: Paul Farol

Paul Farol — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:33:54 +0000

What would the implications of a Philippine FOIA have on a case such as ‘Hello Garci’? This, of course, is granting that under such an FOIA there would be a provision similar to the Presidential Records Act or the Watergate Act, where all the President’s communications would be recorded.

Reply: There is no consistent, systematic and organized archiving of government records at present, given the overlapping functions of the NSCB, NSO, PIA, National Library and other related agencies, among other issues. That would partly explain why the purpose of a “freedom of information” law could be defeated by the quality of information one could get from government. As regards the “Hello, Garci” controversy, one does not need an FOIA to get the necessary information as, from what I gather, important documents like the results of an independent investigation are not marked confidential. It’s just that the government refuses to disclose the findings since it’s supposed to be “internal.”