FOIA passed through the second reading in Congress

[Rhia]

This was forwarded to me by my Prof., Popoy de Vera. He's one of the members of AER.


To: [e-mail], "Jeneline N. Nicolas"
>
> From: "Jessica Cantos"
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 00:52:56 +0800
> Subject: [AER_buzz] access to info bill passes 2nd
> reading in Congress
>
> dear friends,
>
> the freedom of information act pushed by the access
> to info network with
> nepo as its pivot , was successfully passed on 2nd
> reading. wish to share
> with you cong. erin tanada's sponsorship speech
> which was just entered into
> the record to expedite the measure's passage.
>
> salamat ke nepo at sa atin!
>
> The Freedom of Information Act
>
> *A Legacy of the 14th Congress to the Filipino
> People in Pursuit of *
>
> *Democracy, Development and Good Governance*
>
> *(Sponsorship Speech on House Bill 3732)*
>
> *30 April 2008*
>
>
>
> *Rep. Lorenzo "Erin" Tanada III*
>
> *4th District, Quezon Province*
>
> "The days of the secret laws and
> unpublished decrees are over. This
> is once again an open society, with all the acts of
> the government subject
> to public scrutiny and available always to public
> cognizance. This has to
> be so if our country is to remain democratic, with
> sovereignty residing in
> the people and all government authority emanating
> from them"
>
>
>
> - Justice Isagani Cruz
>
> *Potente*
>
> Tañada vs. Tuvera (No. L-63915, 29 December 1986)
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues in the House
> of Representatives:
>
>
>
> The paragraph I just read came from a Supreme Court
> decision written by
> Justice Isagani Cruz on the case filed by my
> grandfather, the late Senator
> Lorenzo M. Tañada, together with Abraham F.
> Sarmiento and the Movement of
> Attroneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism
> (MABINI) against Jun C.
> Tuvera, then serving as Executive Assistant to
> President Ferdinand Marcos,
> among others.
>
> The trigger behind the filing of the case was the
> numerous Letters of
> Instructions and Presidential Decrees that remained
> unpublished during the
> Marcos era from which arrests and other anti-people
> impositions of the
> State were made to appear legal. These measures
> were literally done behind
> our peoples' backs and being used against us. The
> Supreme Court asserted
> that the prior publication of laws before they
> become effective cannot be
> dispensed with.
>
>
>
> These days, publication of laws before they become
> effective is a mere
> matter of course. But during the dark days of
> Martial Law, such was the
> struggle that we had to endure just to gain, little
> by little, some
> semblance of democracy which we all cherish, uphold,
> continue to defend and
> nurture.
>
>
>
> Today, Mr. Speaker, my dear Colleagues, I proudly
> stand before you today
> with high hopes that we shall be adding on and
> enhancing our democratic
> ideals and further empowering our people.
>
>
>
> On behalf of the Committee on Public Information, I
> have the honor to
> sponsor and be the one tasked to defend before
> this august chamber *House
> Bill No. 3732* entitled "*An Act Implementing the
> Right of Access to
> Information on Matters of Public Concern Guaranteed
> under Section
> Twenty-Eight, Article II and Section Seven, Article
> III of the 1987
> Constitution and for OTHER PURPOSES*". This bill is
> in substitution of
> House Bills 194, 997, 1665, 2021, 2059, 2176, 2223,
> 2293 and 3116 that were
> referred to the committee for deliberation.
>
> I am indeed humbled when the good Chair of the
> Committee on Public
> Information seconded to me the task of not only
> chairing the technical
> working group of this bill. I was likewise humbled
> when my authored bill
> was made template for this measure.
>
>
>
> Mr. Speaker, it is our constitutional duty to
> approve this bill and to work
> for its passage into law. Our present constitution
> has secured for the
> Filipino people, in Section 7 of the Bill of Rights,
> their right to be
> informed on matters of public concern. It reads:
>
> "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 the citizen, subject to such limitations as
> may be provided by
> law."
>
>
>
> While our Supreme Court has confirmed that this
> provision is self-executing,
> it is far from complete. Its effective
> implementation has for the past two
> decades suffered from the lack of the necessary
> substantive and procedural
> details that only legislature can provide.
> Specifically:
>
>
>
> One, there is no uniform, simple and speedy
> procedure for securing access to
> information*. *The closest to a statutory procedure
> that we have provided is
> a small section in Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of
> Conduct and Ethical
> Standards for Public Officials and Employees),
> Section 5 (e), which lists
> among the duties of public officials the obligation
> to make all documents
> accessible to the public within reasonable working
> hours. But our public
> officials, instead of applying this plain provision,
> apply instead Section 5
> (a) of the same law, which directs them to act
> promptly on letters and
> requests within fifteen days from receipt thereof.
> Thus requests for
> information are often met with a letter within
> fifteen days acknowledging
> receipt thereof, and stating that the request is
> being considered. If one
> does not follow up on the request, often the
> acknowledgement letter will be
> the end of it.
>
>
>
> Two, the specification of the coverage of the
> guarantee, particularly the
> general rule on what information may be exempted,
> needs legislation. I note
> that the constitutional provision states that access
> to information shall be
> afforded our citizens *subject to such limitations
> as may be provided by law
> **. *Not having done this, we have conceded to the
> Supreme Court the task of
> outlining the limitations of the right to
> information through jurisprudence.
>
>
>
> Three, precisely for the lack of definite
> procedure as well as the
> absence of a definite scope, there is at present no
> effective basis for
> imposing administrative or penal sanctions for
> violations of the right.
>
>
>
> In addition to Section 7 of Article III,
> Section 28 of Article II
> likewise urgently needs legislation. The provision
> states: "*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." The Supreme Court, in the recent case of
> Chavez v. NHA (G.R. No.
> 164527) decided last August 15, 2007, noted that
> while Section 7 of the Bill
> of Rights contemplates a duty upon government to
> permit access to
> information upon request, the declaration of policy
> under Section 28, in
> contrast, contemplates a duty on the part of
> government agencies to bring
> into public view all the steps and negotiations
> leading to the consummation
> of transactions involving public interest and the
> contents of the perfected
> contract, *without need of demand from anyone*. The
> court notes, however,
> and I quote:
>
>
>
> "It is unfortunate, however, that after almost
> twenty (20) years from birth
> of the 1987 Constitution, there is still no enabling
> law that provides the
> mechanics for the compulsory duty of government
> agencies to disclose
> information on government transactions. Hopefully,
> the desired enabling law
> will finally see the light of day if and when
> Congress decides to approve
> the proposed "Freedom of Access to Information
> Act.""
>
>
>
> The result of the past legislative
> inaction is the wanton
> violation of the right of the Filipino people to
> information of great public
> interest and concern. Let me cite a few examples.
> Recall how it had to take
> external pressure for the Melo report on
> extrajudicial killings to be
> finally disclosed to the public. Recall as well how
> the public, and Congress
> itself, had been denied information on the matters
> being negotiated in the
> JPEPA. The *PCIJ*, in the wake of the ZTE
> controversy, did a study on
> official development assistance and requested
> various government agencies
> for key documents. After writing 46 letters and
> making 190 follow-up phone
> calls involving 23 information requests to 15
> government agencies, the
> result was a dismal 8 or 35% of the 23 information
> requests either denied or
> not acted upon. The requests denied or not acted
> upon include: Northrail
> project documents, Northrail – Southrail linkage and
> Southrail project
> documents, President's Bridges Program documents,
> loan agreements, and
> evaluation reports and ICC data and documents on
> various ODA projects.
>
>
>
> Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues,
> this 14th Congress now has
> the opportunity to provide corrective action through
> the passage of this
> bill that the Committee on Public Information
> presents to you today. This
> bill has the following essential features:
>
>
>
> 1. It provides an expansive scope in terms of
> government agencies as
> well as information covered.
>
> 2. It enumerates only a narrow list of
> exceptions, the limits of which
> is circumscribed by clearly stating the serious
> public harm that we wish to
> avoid through the withholding of the said
> information.
>
> 3. To further counterbalance the exceptions, we
> provide citizens an
> opportunity and right to override a recognized
> exception when there is
> greater public interest in the disclosure.
>
> 4. We provide a clear, uniform and speedy
> procedure for access to
> information.
>
> 5. We put in place a provision implementing the
> automatic disclosure of
> transactions of public concern as required by
> Section 28, Article II of the
> constitution.
>
> 6. We proscribe against excessive costs of
> access to information.
>
> 7. We put in place a system of accessible and
> speedy remedies that a
> citizen who has been denied access to information
> may resort to.
>
> 8. We institute mechanisms to promote a culture
> of openness within
> government, and to enhance not only the physical
> accessibility of
> information, but its understandability by the
> general public as well.
>
> 9. We introduce clear administrative, criminal
> and civil liability for
> violation of the right to information.
>
>
>
> Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, in
> discharging our constitutional
> duty, we do so not in mechanistic compliance but
> rather with the very clear
> purpose of securing the public interest and the
> public good.
>
>
>
> The right to information is an important enabling
> ingredient of democracy.
> It is a precondition to the exercise of other
> democratic rights, including
> the freedom of speech, of expression, and of the
> press. It forms the basis
> for the exercise of the right to petition government
> for redress of
> grievances. It also underlies other constitutionally
> protected democratic
> values such as people's participation in government.
>
>
>
> The right to information is a vital cog to good
> governance and government
> accountability. It is a vital safeguard against
> corruption. While secrecy in
> government makes corruption flourish, in contrast
> transparency exposes
> corrupt officials as well as corrupt practices. The
> right to information
> also secures for us better policies. It enhances the
> capacity of the public
> to provide timely feedback to government, thereby
> promoting more responsive
> government planning. It promotes constructive and
> informed debate between
> and among government and stakeholders, and builds
> consensus around policy
> objectives and design.
>
>
>
> Thus the right to information provides fuel to
> development. Development
> requires better and more responsive policies, which
> the right to information
> can effectively evolve. Development also requires
> that we decisively address
> corruption, which the right to information can
> facilitate. As noted by the
> Speaker in a recent statement, "(G)raft and
> corruption is sapping the public
> coffers of the needed resources to fight poverty,"
> and that "economic growth
> could even leap by ten-fold and its benefits
> channeled to depressed areas if
> public funds are not diverted by corruption". These
> are precisely the
> challenges that the bill before us responds to.
>
>
>
> Let me note that while it is with the 14th Congress
> that now lies the
> distinct opportunity and challenge to bring forth a
> very important piece of
> legislation, we also stand upon the shoulders of
> several Congresses before
> us. This is not the first time that freedom of
> information bills have been
> deliberated in the Committee on Public Information,
> and we have benefited
> from their work. I also note the substantive
> contribution of government and
> non-government resource persons in the committee
> hearings. I acknowledge
> particularly the inputs from the Access to
> Information Network, that have
> provided us insights in both the present state of
> the law on access to
> information, and the elements we need to put in
> place for an effective and
> potent piece of legislation. I also acknowledge the
> hard work put in by the
> committee secretariat in assisting the members of
> the Committee in
> discharging their legislative wok. It has been a
> cumulative process. And
> precisely by being cumulative, we have the best
> consolidated version before
> us today, for which we can all be proud of.
>
>
>
> Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, your
> Committee on Public Information
> hereby proposes the passage of the Freedom of
> Information Act of 2008.
> Together with our committee Chairman, Rep.
> Bienvenido Abante, Jr., as well
> as the other authors of the bill, I earnestly urge
> the immediate approval of
> House Bill 3732. Let this be the legacy of the 14th
> Congress to the Filipino
> people – a shining legislation in pursuit of
> democracy, good governance, and
> national development.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> --
> jeck
> 0917 320 0007
>

[Rafaela]

this is a great victory for the country!!!
the challenge now is to pressure the senate into passing the bill!

[Rhia]

OO nga pero malayo pa yan. Babagal daw ang pprocess sa Senate. Naka-standstill daw eh. I think this is due to other urgent bill.

But at least there's a movement in the process. My prof also told me to meet Atty. Nepo to discuss our involvement.

Nweys, let's discuss this on Wednesday.

Rhia