Matching standards

“Focus your light,” grizzled editors often drill into young reporters. “Then, watch the cockroaches skitter. That could well be your story.”

This axiom unreels in the trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, Mondays to Thursdays, starting at 2 p.m. Roaches scrammed from gap-studded statements of assets, liabilities and net worth to glitzy condos. Bank accounts were emptied on the day the articles of impeachment landed in the Senate.

Information ushers in transparency, the anchor of good governance. Thus, “The Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition” welcomed President Aquino’s delayed green light for the snarled Freedom of Information bill. FOI was “mugged by roll call” at the 14th Congress.

“They’re not all saints who use holy water.” Congressmen pledged to ratify the FOI bill. When the vote was called, only 128 House members showed up—seven short of the 135 needed in a House of 268 members.

All Arroyos—Diosdado, Maria Lourdes, Juan Miguel and the late Ignacio were “no-shows”: Allies like Jesus Crispin Remulla; Pastor Alcover, Jovito Palparan (now a fugitive) vanished.

Allow us to check members, requested Representatives Erin Tañada, Joel Villanueva, Del de Guzman, Risa Hontiveros, Walden Bello and Satur Ocampo. Speaker Prospero Nograles, Pedro Romualdo (Camiguin) and allies instead gaveled FOI into the archives.

“In doing so, they built another ‘fire wall’ for the anticipated exposés of sleaze against their patron: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,” Viewpoint (Inquirer, 8/7/10) noted. “It mattered little that they fractured the constitutional directive for transparency.”

Section 7 of the Constitution provides for the citizen’s right to public information. State policy seeks full disclosure of transactions involving public interest.

In his first State of the Nation Address, however, P-Noy didn’t bother with retrieving the gutted FOI measure. Thereafter, he expressed reservations about the measure.

“Many of us are puzzled,” Inquirer columnist Cielito Habito wrote. “This (is) an uncharacteristic omission” by the President. By instinct, track record and policy, P-Noy supports transparency. “Yet, no one beyond P-Noy’s innermost circle seems to know the real reason for the omission…. One can only hope it’s not an ominous sign that enemies of transparency are gaining some headway in the new leadership.”

Those jitters were widely shared by the press. Journalists persisted until this month when the President endorsed an FOI draft bill—finally.

This “clears the way for the long-overdue passage of the FOI bill,” said the press coalition, spearheaded by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. “We acknowledge efforts by reformers in the executive branch, namely Budget Secretary Florencio ‘Butch’ Abad and Information Undersecretary Manuel L. Quezon III.”

If passed, the FOI bill will adopt a uniform speedy procedure for people’s access to information. It also narrows the wide wiggle room “for administrative avoidance of disclosing information under current laws.” The bill “frees the broadest amount of non-sensitive information to… everyday needs of citizens” who avail of public services.

As drafted, the bill clamps limits on exceptions to release of sensitive information. It shifts to government the burden of proving exceptions. Such exclusion “must be strictly construed,” so they may not be used to cover up crime.

The measure identifies “documents of high public interest that must be disclosed without need of request.” These would include the SALNs, often very difficult to access, as the Corona trial shows. Various mechanisms to widen access of information are proposed. New provisions for hefty penalties are tacked on.

“There will be continuing challenges that will have to be fought” even if the bill is passed. “One is the struggle against abuse of broadening national security exceptions, under Malacañang amendments.”

The press coalition welcomed Mr. Aquino’s squashing of Memorandum Circular 78. This Aug. 14, 1964 guideline classifies sensitive documents into: top secret, secret, confidential, and restricted. “MC 78 is overbroad,” the press group added.

Almost all government officials wield the power to classify. “Heads of departments have the authority to classify information as top secret or secret.” Worse, they may delegate that power to black out. “For confidential and restricted matter, any officer is authorized to make such classifications.

“Information that may be classified under MC 78 is practically unlimited. Top secret matters include “major governmental projects…” Confidential matters need not involve matters of national security. (They) include “matters as would cause administrative embarrassment.” Restricted include matters vaguely defined as “requiring special protection.”

Section 6 (a) of the bill authorizes the President to issue an executive order providing new classification guidelines. “What is left is the task of obtaining a reasonable definition and scope of national security.”

“We are made wise, not by our recollection of the past, but by the responsibilities for the future,” George Bernard Shaw cautions. What is the task of today’s journalists—many of them, women, young and well-educated elders—after the FOI act gets on the law books?

It is to match the broad freedoms granted with higher standards of competence and responsibility, we suggest. These help create an atmosphere of relevant reporting from a plurality of voices. “Deep calls unto deep,” the Psalmist writes.

* * *

Email: [email protected]