The
right to information was first included in the 1973 Constitution
and was expanded in the 1987 Constitution.
Article III, Section 7, states:
The
right of the people to information of matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records
and 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.(1)
•
Combined gross enrolment ratio for primary,
secondary and tertiary schools, 2002/03: 81.7
•
GDP per capita (PPP US$) (HDI), 2003: 4,321
•
Total population (millions), 2003: 80
•
Total fertility rate (births per woman), 2000-05:
3.2
•
Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births),
2003: 36
•
Net primary enrolment ratio (%), 2002/03: 94
•
HIV prevalence (% ages 15-49), 2003: <0.1
[<0.2]
•
Undernourished people (% of total population),
2000/03: 22
•
Population with sustainable access to an improved
water source (%), 2002: 85
Source:
UN Development Program, Human Development Reports
Data
Article
II, Section 28 obliges government to fully disclose information
of a public interest:
Subject
to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure
of all its transactions involving public interest.
The
Supreme Court as far back as 1948 recognized the importance
of access to information and has issued a series of rulings.(2)
The Court ruled in 1987 that the right could be applied
directly without the need for an additional Act.(3)
There
is no Freedom of Information Act per se in the Philippines
but a combination of the Constitutional right and various
other legal provisions makes it one of the most open countries
in the region.(4)
The
Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees requires disclosure of public transactions
and guarantees access to official information, records or
documents.(5) The Act sets a policy of
"full public disclosure of all its transactions involving
public interest." Officials must act on a request within
15 working days from receipt of the request.
The
implementing
regulations of the law require that the head of each
body "establish measures and standards that will ensure
transparency and openness."(6)
The
rules create exemptions for information and documents related
to national security and foreign affairs, information that
would cause imminent harm to an individual, privileged information
or information exempted by another law, drafts or decisions,
orders, rulings, policy, decisions, memoranda, and information
that would intrude into personal privacy, impede law enforcement
and cause financial instability.
The
Code also requires that public officials disclose information
about their assets, liabilities, net worth and businesses
interests. The information is available to the public but
use for commercial purposes or "contrary to morals
or public policy" is prohibited.
Complaints
against public officials and employees who fail to act on
an information request can be filed with the Civil Service
Commission or the Office of the Ombudsman. The courts can
hear cases once administrative remedies have been exhausted.
A
comparative review by the Southeast Asian Press Alliance
in 2002 found that the Philippines, even without a formal
FOI law, was one of the most open in the region.(7)
However, there are still many problems in accessing information,
especially by non-media.(8) These include
a lack of a uniform procedure to obtain information from
bodies, a "fluid" scope of right due to changing
government policies, limited sanctions, inadequate remedies
to require disclosure, and a lack of a culture of transparency
in government bodies.(9)
In
2002, civil society groups formed the Access to Information
Network to press for the adoption of a FOI law. In the past
several Congresses, numerous bills have been introduced
but thus far none have been approved.(10)
Article
229 of the Penal
Code prohibits public officers from releasing "any
secret" or from "wrongfully deliver papers or
copies of papers" with a maximum penalty of jail and
a fine of 2,000 pesos if the release "caused serious
damage to the public interest."(11)
4
NOVEMBER 2003
PHILIPPINES: Court Workers Sing, Dance For Transparency SunStar
Network (Philippines) reports
that court employees, instead of chanting protest lines,
sang old-time favorites and danced to boogey tunes as they
demanded transparency in the disbursement of the Judiciary
Development Fund (JDF).
Wearing
red shirts or red armbands, the court employees called for
a salary increase and transparency in the disbursement of
the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
The
alleged misuse of the JDF prompted Reps. Felix William Fuentebella,
of Camarines Sur, and Gilberto Teodoro, of Tarlac, to file
an impeachment complaint, which was subsequently endorsed
by more than 80 congressmen.
17
JANUARY 2003
PHILIPPINES: Access to Information
A case study published today on Freedominfo.org
reveals that the Philippines, despite its lack of
actual freedom of information legislation, is amongst the
most open democracies in Southeast Asia.
In
a 2001 survey on the accessibility to the public of 43 government-held
records, it fared even better than Thailand, which passed
an Official Information Act in 1997. In fact, in the study
conducted by the Philippine
Center for Investigative Journalism and Southeast
Asian Press Alliance, 59% of Filipinos answered "Yes"
when asked if records were available to the public.
2.
Abelardo Subido, Editor, The Manila Post, petitioner,
vs. Roman Ozeta, Secretary of Justice, and Mariano Villanueva,
Register of Deeds of City of Manila, respondents. G.R. No.
L-1631. 27 February 1948. http://www.aer.ph/images/stories/projects/id/cases/subido.pdf.
For an overview of constitutional cases, see Nepomuceno
A. Malaluan, Democracy, Development and Access to Official
Information in the Philippines, Action for Economic Reforms,April
2001. http://www.aer.ph/images/stories/projects/id/access.pdf
Accountability
and Public Voice: 4.46
Civil Liberties: 3.92
Rule of Law: 3.30
Anticorruption and Transparency: 3.50
"Second,
in 2004, the government secured funding from foreign
donors to create a publicly available data bank
of public officials' statements of assets, liabilities,
and net worth. Although citizens have a constitutional
right to view such statements, the latter are
currently difficult to obtain. Record-keeping
practices of the different government agencies
vary; in some agencies, documents are available
only haphazardly, and if government agencies choose
to withhold or delay access to information, the
only recourse is to petition the Supreme Court
for redress of an unconstitutional act. By facilitating
access to public officials' financial statements,
the data bank will eliminate the need to go to
court and facilitate detection and prevention
of corruption."
"The
Constitution provides for a right to information
on matters of public concern, and the Supreme
Court has affirmed this provision. However, an
NGO noted that denial of such information occurred
when the information related to an anomaly or
irregularity in government transactions. Moreover,
much government information was not available
electronically and was difficult to retrieve."
1)
Voice and Accountability: 0.02
2) Political Instability and Violence: -1.01
3) Government Effectiveness: -0.23
4) Regulatory Burden: -0.06
5) Rule of Law: -0.62
6) Control of Corruption: -0.55
