Information is power.
Only an informed citizenry can give true meaning to the definition of democracy, which is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Our Constitution recognizes this. That’s why it is enshrined in the Bill of Rights that “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.”
The Freedom of Information bill, which Arroyo-administration dominated House of Representatives refused to pass, gives flesh to this Constitutional provision.
“ The Right to Know. Right Now! Coalition” explains “The Freedom of Information Act fills the legal gaps that have made our constitutional right to information practically inoperable. It provides standard and definite procedures in dealing with requests for information. It clearly defines a narrow list of exceptions, carefully balancing the public interest in securing the widest availability of information while recognizing the public interest in withholding certain information identified in the bill. It secures for citizens concurrent remedies in cases of denial of access to information.
“Where a denial is illegal, the citizen concerned may also file the appropriate criminal or administrative complaint. It provides for the public disclosure, without need of request from anyone, of important government transactions. It introduces numerous mechanisms for the active promotion of openness in government,” the coalition further says.
As we all know, all that was needed for the FOI bill, which was nine years in the making, was approval of the House of Representatives so it could be sent to Malacañang for signature.
Alas, majority of the congressmen didn’t want the bill to become law. They want the people to remain in the state of ignorance for obvious reasons: an uninformed citizenry is easier to manipulate.
If the congressmen, who have many things to hide from the public, believe that their dirt is safe without the FOI bill, they are wrong. Yes, it would be harder for us, journalists but we will still give the public the truth.
It’s not the end of the FOI bill. The scoundrels just delayed it.
It will become a law. Not under this administration that thrived on lies.
Now this is what we need to focus on. What can we do in our capacity as citizens of the Philippines to finally see this bill passed?
Scoundrels are a plenty in Congress… uhmm.. I think Speaker Nograles has the complete list. 😛
Number one scoundrel is the fake president Gloria Arroyo. The FOI bill has no chance in her sneaky and villainous rule. We can’t expect a liar, a cheat, a thief, and a plunderer to inform the people. Hopefully, the next administration will give top priority to the passing of this bill.
Worry no more Chi, sinagot na ni Pres. Noynoy ang hiling ng marami. Read the link below: 🙂
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/192799/noynoy-vows-to-make-foi-bill-his-administrations-priority
oh, goodie!
Ok, salamat Mike.
transparency is basic for good governance
With majority in congress considered thugs anyways, if it passes or not; these solons will ensure to have things in the bill or act exempt from public scrutiny or being made public. Juan and Marya are not writing the bill. This is a corrupt third world country after all – maybe Noynoy can make a difference with the status quo.
transparency is basic for good governance – sychitpin
Kahit naman kailan at saan, ang “see-through” ay magandang tingnan.
O, nag-isip na naman ng kung ano. Ibig kong sabihin kailangan talaga ‘yung lantaran at walang itinatago lalo sa pamamalakad ng gobyerno.
‘Yung kay goyang bukod sa nakakulambo na, nakabalot pa ng thermal blanket, naka roba, nasa kasuluksulukan na ng banyo ay napapaligiran pa ng halos dalawang palapag na gusaling taas ng pader ang ginagawang istayl ng pekeng namumunong pagnanakaw ang inaatupag upang huwag matiktikan ay patong patong pa ang mga tsuwawang sipsip na nagtatakip at ipinagsisinungaling ang kagarapalan.
Dapat nasa Guinness Book yang rekord ng pagnanakaw ng pamilya dorobo dahil walang makakatalo sa kanilang kasibaan.
Malacañang Deputy Presidential Spokesman Gary Olivar on Sunday hit back at critics for faulting Arroyo among others, for the failure of the House of Representatives and the Senate to ratify the Freedom of Information Bill (FOI).
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/06/10/malaca%C3%B1ang-stop-blaming-arroyo-countrys-ills
Nakupo!
Ako pala ang may kasalanan kaya nagkakaganito ang takbo ng Pilipinas. Dahil pala sa aking pagpuna kay goyang ay tuluyang nalugmok sa kahirapang ang aking mga kababayan. Sa kabila pala ng pagsasakripisyo ko dine sa ibayong dagat ay naging dahilan pa upang malublob sa kumunoy ng pagdarahop ang kapwa ko Pinoy na nagsisikap mabuhay ng marangal kahit kakarampot ang kinikita’t halos hindi sumasayad sa kamay.
Patawarin ninyo ako, mga kababayan ko!
Gary Olivar, magkano na naman ang bonus mo?
The more that there is a need for a movement to focus on Congressmen. Congressman Mo, I-Patrol Mo.
Noynoy and the courageous journalists will need all the pressure points we can give them to get this bill through.
Let’s ask our respective Congressmen how he voted and why and where was he/she when the vote was needed.
Atty. Harry Roque sees something positive in the non-passage of the FOI bill:
All is not lost with the death of FOI
“All is not lost with the death of the Freedom of Information Bill,” this was declared by Centerlaw Chair Prof. Harry Roque of the UP College of Law. “It is the Constitution that grants the people the right to information on matters involving public concerns. The failure of Congress to pass the FOI law simply means that the right would not be subject to limitations other than those provided by jurisprudence,” Roque added.
Roque explained that Freedom of Information as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution is self-executory. This, according to him, is apparent in the language of the Constitution: “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 decision, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development shall be afforded the citizenry, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”
In the case of Chavez versus PEA-Amari, the Supreme Court defined “public concerns” as those “which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.”
The remedy, as ruled by the Court also in Chavez is for any citizen, including members of the media, to file a suit in Court for mandamus if a government agency does not release any information that may involve public concerns.
Mandamus is an extra-ordinary writ to compel the doing of a ministerial act. Here, the refusal to accord the peoples right to information may be controlled by the writ since pursuant to the law, the duty to divulge these information is purely ministerial and does not involve the exercise of discretion.
Roque explained that under existing jurisprudence, some limitations on the right to information include matters affecting national security, the conduct of foreign affairs, and on-going criminal investigations. “Outside of these traditional exceptions, no public officer may deny the people or members of the media their right to information.”
Roque though conceded that it would have been better to have the law. “Law seeks to achieve predictability. Obviously, legislation on how the right should be exercised and the consequences of the breach of the right would promote further predictability on the exercise of the right.”
But in default of legislation, Roque exhorted the citizenry and the media to construe the right as not being subject to legislated limitations. “Demand for information as if it is not subject to any limitations,” Roque advised the public and the media.
hindi lang sa mga new administration nating iasa ang pagbabago…we all are responsible…we all should be united and we all should work together…ano gagawin kay putot? kay Nerisa? let them be tried in a true honest to goodness court of law…hindi Ambushman…calling Judge Lorredo! calling Atty. Roque at ang mga katulad nila..let all those who know the truth come forward…hindi na ka takip ang mukha like polar bear..will the truthful witnesses please come forward…bantayan rin natin ang mga ampatuans…baka makalusot si putot at ma absolto ang mga ito…kailan ang simula ng session sa congress?
I remember the Ombudsman once said it is possible to get info on any of the cases under their jurisdiction as long as there is an applicant, where he/she states her personal details, etc. They would have to approve it based on a need-to-know basis.
Ano, sira? Hinhingi ka ng status halimbawa ng NBN-ZTE tapos ilalagay mo address mo e kung tepokin ka ng mga miyembro ng mafia ni Putot?
Talaga, Tongue. Tingnan mo si tita Neri at hanggang wakas e mabait sa amo nyang balasubas. Takot lang nyang matepok!
Ano, sira? Hinhingi ka ng status halimbawa ng NBN-ZTE tapos ilalagay mo address mo e kung tepokin ka ng mga miyembro ng mafia ni Putot?
hahahahah!
E di ibigay iyong address ni Mikey o ni Putot!
the government poor the people, the government buy the people. ito ang pinas.
may information ka nga kanino mo naman ibibigay? pag ibinigay mo sa ombudsman wala namang mangyayari kikita lang sila (ombudsman) delikado pa buhay mo.
Akala ng mga swapang ay nakaisa sila, dahil hindi naging batas ang panukala. Ngunit kailangan mo lang ng batas o demanda sa hukuman kung ayaw magbigay ng information ang opisina ng gobyerno.
Ang batas, o demanda sa hukuman ay kailangan upang pilitin ang opisina ng gobyerno. May isang paraan pa, maliban diyan.
Kung ang unang EO ng Pangulong-halal ay buksan ang libro ng gobyerno, hindi na kailangan ng demanda. Ang pagpipilit ay manggagaling mismo sa kataas-taasang pinuno.
Sige. Simulang na ang paper shredding bago umupo ang Pangulong-halal. Nakakatiyak ba kayong walang sinilid na kopya ang mga empleyadong maliliit? Kung wala nang sanhi ng takot ang pagbubulgar, naniniwala akong maraming lalabas, parang langgam na may pasan-pasang ebidensya.
I would rather somebody else agreed with me instead of this guy.
‘Yung address ni Swabit Swingson ang ibigay.
I would rather somebody else agreed with me instead of this guy. – SnV.
Napaihi ako, ah.
Wala na bang magtiwala at maniwala sa mamang ito?
Sirang sira ang papel ng damuho.