FOI law now within reach

The Philippines is now within reach of a Freedom of Information (FOI) law, a measure that has languished in Congress for almost four decades.

The House of Representatives has approved the bill on final reading this week, while the Senate passed its own version last month. This development comes at a time when issues of graft and corruption have gripped the public and government spending has come under increased scrutiny.

The next step would be to reconcile the differences between the two measures at the bicameral committee level, a process sidelined by the ongoing Senate leadership struggle.

An FOI law will ensure public access to government records, including statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALNs), annual national and local budgets as well as itemized expenditures, audit reports, bidding documents, government contracts, and environmental compliance certificates and assessment reports.

Access to information is guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution, but it requires an enabling law to permanently institute the public’s right to access government records. Such law will also impose penalties for those who refuse to provide them and remedies for those whose requests are denied.

Sole repository of SALNs

What happened in the previous administration should be a crucial reminder of why an FOI law is needed.

In 2016, then President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order No. 2, which mandated the full public disclosure of government transactions involving the public interest, but it applied only to the executive branch. Among its provisions was a reminder to all public officials to file their SALN and guaranteed public access to such records and documents.

Ironically, Duterte himself refused to make public his SALN since 2017 and left the decision to release it to the Office of the Ombudsman. In 2020, following an uproar over Duterte’s continued refusal, then Ombudsman Samuel Martires released Memorandum Circular No. 1 mandating that such documents could only be released to the declarant, an authorized representative, or a court. Martires, who reasoned that the SALN was being weaponized against government officials, was widely criticized for violating the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust.

The Ombudsman is the sole repository of SALNs of the president, vice president, as well as chairs and commissioners of constitutional bodies, for example, the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit and the Civil Service Commission. In October last year, Martires’ successor, Jesus Crispin Remulla, lifted the restrictions.

Final version

Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, meanwhile, is set to face an impeachment trial for multiple counts of graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. Her SALNs have been subject to scrutiny due to allegations of misusing P612.5 million in confidential funds, among others.

Aside from public officials’ SALNs, there has been increased interest in annual budgets, audit reports, and bidding documents following allegations of widespread corruption in flood control projects involving government officials and private contractors. As Dinagat Islands Rep. Arlene “Kaka” Bag-ao said, access to such information could have “stopped the massive corruption hiding behind substandard flood control projects and unchecked confidential funds.”

The signing of an FOI law, however, should not be treated as a panacea that will prevent all forms of corruption or whip government officials into moral shape. It still depends on the final version of the law and, more crucially, on its implementation—an area where Philippine governance has always been weak.

Penalties for violations

Among the differences between the House and Senate measures is the proposed penalties for violations. The House is proposing a jail term of from six months to not more than two years, and a P200,000 penalty. The Senate, on the other hand, wants violators to face imprisonment ranging from one year to not more than six years, and a fine of P100,000 to P1 million. Lawmakers must ensure that such fines and penalties would be tough enough to deter noncompliance of the law.

The measure has already hurdled Congress, a long and arduous process since the first “access to information” bill was filed by the late Bicol congressman Raul Roco at the House in October 1987, shortly after the 1987 Constitution was ratified. The next step is for lawmakers to consolidate the measures and transmit the final version to President Marcos for signature ahead of his fifth State of the Nation Address next month.

Half of the battle has already been done, but the real test is how it will be implemented and enforced. Additionally, it also depends on how the public will use this law to exact accountability and transparency from public officials, a process that Filipinos must actively champion if we want to truly transform the country’s culture of governance.