The only way to go
A new Congress, a new opportunity for the Freedom of Information bill to make it through the mill—if President Aquino decides to fulfill his campaign promise and push for it. That “if” is the biggest stumbling block to the bill’s passage. The President—however much he has been reminded that people voted for him partly because he promised a more open, transparent system of governance—has found various reasons to stall, delay and evade forthright action on the FOI bill. With three congresses having gone by and the bill still stuck in a legislative no man’s land, his justifications have grown more untenable, and the public’s patience is wearing thin.
Just recently, with this paper exposing the alleged misuse of the lawmakers’ Priority Development Assistance Fund aka pork barrel, Malacañang had to concede that the media had a right to look into official transactions and perceived government anomalies. That about answers the ludicrous demand by some lawmakers—which Mr. Aquino has indicated he is agreeable to—that before any FOI bill is passed, it must require the media to provide equal space to people and entities who will be subjected to reports arising from data and information culled through the proposed measure.
Let’s put that onerous “right of reply” requirement into clearer view: Take the series of reports the Inquirer has been running on the alleged pork barrel scam. The National Bureau of Investigation itself has formally begun looking into the alleged funneling of certain lawmakers’ PDAF into bogus nongovernment organizations said to have been formed by businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles. Follow-up reports have touched on other irregular PDAF disbursements at the Department of Agriculture, questionable programs in several towns in the provinces of Rizal and Quezon said to have been funded by the pork barrel of Senator Lito Lapid, and even the ultralavish lifestyle of Napoles’ daughter as documented on videos that have gone viral online.
If the proposed FOI law were in place with the “right of reply” proviso enshrined at its heart, none of those reports would have seen the light of day. Napoles, Lapid et al. could simply refuse to answer the allegations and let the media wait, and wait, effectively preventing the information inimical to them from reaching the public. In that guise, the “right of reply” is censorship by another name, an attempt to hinder, if not throttle outright, the people and the media’s right to comment freely on official transactions underwritten with tax money and conducted in its name. Existing libel laws and statutes relating to both individual privacy and national security already provide adequate safeguards in this regard. The “right of reply” is an unacceptable condition for the passage of the FOI bill.
Senator Grace Poe has promised to spearhead the renewed push for the bill in the Senate. In fact, the Senate may not be the problem; in the last Congress, it managed to pass a version of the FOI bill, never mind the rather unfortunate title it carried—the proposed “People’s Ownership of Government Information,” or Pogi, Law. But in the House of Representatives, the bill languished in the information committee of Samar Rep. Ben Evardone until it was too late to meet plenary processes before the election recess.
The bill finally reached the House plenary last January by way of sponsorship speeches by Evardone and then Deputy Speaker Erin Tañada, its main author. But time ran out, as Congress was set to adjourn for the election campaign period. The lack of quorum meant no deliberations could push through and, once again, the FOI bill was relegated to the back burner.
New versions of the bill were among the first measures filed when the new Congress opened last month. Since the President has shown only tepid support for the bill so far, in contrast to the enthusiastic support he expressed for it on the campaign trail three years ago, someone ought to tell him that the people have not forgotten his promise.
No amount of crowing about improved governance under his watch will matter until the people are able to check for themselves the veracity of such claims. An express declaration of law allowing ordinary citizens to become active protectors of the public till, able to scrutinize and demand transparency in government transactions, is the only way to go for “daang matuwid.”
