Flaws in the current laws regarding freedom of information (FOI) have ironically made it harder for concerned citizens in Laguna province to gain access to vital documents on various public transactions.
“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.”
- 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article 3, Section 7
Public service demands public accountancy.
That was one of the reasons the so-called “right to information” was enshrined in our Constitution, enabling the public to be informed not only on the projects and programs of government – whether it be national or local – but also on documents on public transactions and decisions.
The rationale behind “Freedom of Information” (FOI) is that a well-informed public can demand better service from its public officials, especially given the fact that almost all programs and services provided by the local government come from our hard-earned tax money.
This holds especially true in the Philippines where corruption in local governance has become the norm rather than the exception, as residents are often kept in the dark about how local governments use (or abuse) the millions of pesos in funds entrusted by their constituents.
Enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, FOI was institutionalized in 2016 by former President Rodrigo Duterte under Executive Order No. 2 as part of his administration’s pledge to stamp out corruption in government.
E. O. No. 2 created a mechanism that enables citizens to make a formal request to get information held by the government, barring certain sensitive information relating to privacy and national security.
Unfortunately, as some government officials have tacitly admitted, flaws in the current laws regarding FOI have ironically made it harder for concerned citizens to gain access to vital documents on various public transactions.
Left in the dark
This trend, unfortunately, has caused the public to be left in the dark about vital public transactions such as the management of their local public utilities.
For instance, in San Pedro City, residents serviced by PrimeWater Infrastructure, a private corporation handling the facilities of the LGU-run San Pedro Water District (SWD), are now confused as to who really is in charge of solving the problems of water supply and quality that has plagued them for decades.
The reason? The joint venture agreement (JVA) between SPWD and PrimeWater has been inaccessible to the public since it was first implemented in 2015.
Successive meetings between OpinYon Laguna and officials of PrimeWater and SPWD have so far failed to produce the document, with officials claiming privacy as a reason for withholding the details.
Compounded to this is the fact that San Pedro City has yet to enact an ordinance institutionalizing freedom of information, notwithstanding Mayor Art Mercado's pledge to ensure transparency in the city’s programs and transactions after he won the elections last May.
Non-compliant LGUs
San Pedro City is not alone in this troublesome trend of lack of FOI ordinances,
officials of the Philippine Information Agency (PIA) said.
In fact, only 63 LGUs in the entire Philippines have local ordinances enacting FOI, officials said during a media briefing conducted by the PIA last December 14 in Tagaytay City, Cavite, which was attended by members of the local media in the Calabarzon region.
In Laguna province alone, only three LGUs – the provincial government and the cities of Cabuyao and San Pablo – have FOI ordinances, Freedom of Information Program Management Office (FOI PMO) Information Officer John Wilmer Jimenez bared. (However, a check by OpinYon Laguna confirmed that the town of Pakil have also passed an FOI ordinance in 2018.)
That is because according to Jimenez, the FOI PMO is not directly responsible for overseeing the implementation of FOI laws among local governments.
"We do not cover yung local governments, but we have a joint memorandum order with the DILG [Department of Interior and Local Government] to encourage local government units to localize itong freedom of information," he said.
Unfortunately, this meant that ordinary citizens had to request for relevant information about their LGUs’ transactions from the national government, often without success.
“Based on our experience implementing FOI, kalimitan po request ng ating mga citizens ay granular or local,” Jimenez related. “So itong mga information na nakukuha ng mga local government units which is not reflected sa national, so pag magtatanong sila ng information sa national [government], the national government agency will just say wala sa amin ang information na ito, at kinukuha ito on a local level.”
Implementation of FOI
When asked on the role of FOI PMO in the implementation of EO No. 2, Jimenez also bared that their office still relies on government agencies and entities in enforcing FOI laws.
“Ang FOI PMO ay di po ang nag-iimplement ng freedom of information program. We just oversee yung implementation nito and provide guidelines to different government agencies,” the FOI PMO head said during the briefing.
“Yung mga agencies under the executive branch po ang nag-iimplement nitong FOI, we do not also cover local government (units) but we have a joint memorandum order with the DILG [Department of Interior and Local Government] to encourage local government units to localize itong freedom of information,” he added.
With this kind of situation, compliance with the program is solely dependent on the given agencies or offices’ willingness and capacity to comply.
Another problem is the long process time for the requests, which can take 15 working days for simple requests and another 20 working days for complex requests.
However, FOI officials defended this trend, pointing out that the average process time takes seven working days based on their study.
In addition to this, the agency where the request was addressed can either accept or deny the request given a justification.
In case the person requesting the request does not agree with the decision, an appeal can be filed and can be elevated up to judicial courts.
When asked by OpinYon Laguna about the difference of the FOI to a full disclosure policy, Jimenez answered, “that comes in yung reactive disclosure ng FOI, so ang rationale non is freedom of information provides a mechanism for citizens to request or access government-held information, not just the government providing information to the citizen, at least itong FOI ay two-way communication siya. The citizens can request, without FOI, citizens can’t request.”
Localizing FOI laws
“Part of our advocacy is encompassing a law, again we are already operating under an executive order so doon po sa level of policy mas maganda kung law siya because yung implementation ay all government levels,” Jimenez added.
According to PIA, in this case, the implementation will not be limited to the Executive but expanded to the Judicial and Legislative branches of the government.
Perhaps, the concept of a Freedom of Information program in itself will be of great help to the public but without the cooperation and initiative of the whole government, this concept will remain insufficient yet helpful.
(With reports by Catherine Go and Jai Duena)