N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (December 14, 5:00 a.m.) where I write a weekly column (Philippine Fantasy).
Concerned journalists and other groups are expected to go to the Senate today (December 14) to push for the approval on third reading of Senate Bill No. (SBN) 3308, also known as the “Freedom of Information Act of 2009.” Update (Dec. 14, 8:00 p.m. Manila time): The Senate approved on third and final reading SBN 3308.
The Philippine Congress is expected to go on recess on Friday (December 18), hence the perceived need to push the senators to make what is described to be a “progressive and responsive” piece of legislation closer to becoming a law. The momentum, after all, has to be sustained given that the Senate approved the proposed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on second reading only last December 7.
In a statement congratulating the senators, more than 100 civil society organizations stressed that the proposed FOIA “will make the Constitutional right to know and the state policy of full disclosure of transactions involving public interest fully operable. While the right to information has been held by the courts to be executory, it is difficult to enforce in practice. There is no standard procedure in dealing with requests. There is no law clarifying the exact scope of the right. The state policy requiring government to fully disclose transactions involving public interest does not have the implementing mechanics. There are no effective sanctions to deter or make accountable the violation of the right. As a result, requests for information are routinely disregarded or denied based on arbitrary exceptions.”
If and when SBN 3308 is approved on third reading, the bill goes through the bicameral conference committee which will reconcile the versions of the bill from the Senate and the House of Representatives. The last step is the submission of the FOIA for the President’s signature.
Whether or not the FOIA will be enacted into law remains to be seen, but time is apparently running out. Congress takes a Christmas break on December 18 and there are only nine session days left between the resumption of Congress on January 18 and its adjournment on February 5.
It is understandable for media organizations to support the proposed FOIA even if there are journalists who are lukewarm to the idea of enacting an FOIA under the current administration.
The prevailing culture of impunity, after all, gives rise to various forms of media repression sometimes done in the name of the law that is supposed to prevent them. The Campus Journalism Act (CJA) of 1991 is a good example of how a law that is supposed to protect campus press freedom ends up suppressing it.
As far as the proposed FOIA is concerned, there is reason for journalists to be worried about Sec. 9(e) which states: “The government agency shall comply with such request within seven calendar days from the receipt thereof.” One does not have to be familiar with the workings of the press to know that receiving data requests for as long as seven calendar days would result in failure to meet deadlines, thereby depriving audiences of information.
In other words, the suppression of information becomes possible with the creative interpretation of the FOIA, no thanks to an administration that remains hostile to press freedom.
This is the context in which I expressed my ambivalence towards the proposed FOIA in a position paper I submitted to the Senate in February 2009. Two important points I mentioned before are worth repeating now:
- “(A) special provision (should) be included for the government agencies’ expeditious granting or denial of information requests from journalists, subject to the same `procedure of access’ as stated in Section 9(a)…Expeditious granting or denial of information requests from journalists should be seen in the context of government’s commitment to provide an atmosphere conducive to the exercise of press freedom.
- “What also proves to be missing in the proposed Freedom of Information Act is the declassification of certain confidential documents after a certain number of years. It may be recalled that then US President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order No. 12958 in April 1995 which authorized the release of previously classified national security documents `more than 25 years old and [and deemed] to have permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code (Sec. 1.6c of EO 12958).'”
While it is true that there are benefits to having a law that stipulates access to information, journalists should not see it as the solution to their problems in dealing with uncooperative sources of information from the government.
In fact, journalists should make sure that the FOIA, if and when it becomes a law, would not be used to deprive media organizations of the necessary information in their coverage of pressing issues and concerns.
Under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration, or a political metamorphosis of it after the May 2010 elections, laws are either wantonly disregarded or abused to suit the interests of the powers-that-be, even if it means suppressing freedoms as basic as access to information.