Access of Information: Transparency and Accountability

of Government Service

A LEGAL RESEARCH PRESENTED

TO

ATTORNEY JAKE J. LOPEZ

Professor, LEG 111

College of Government and Public Policy

Department of Political Science

BY

LIEZEL F. PORTUGAL

In Partial Fulfillment with the Requirements of the Degree of the Course

Bachelor of Arts, major in Paralegal Studies

October 13, 2016

First Semester, School Year 2016-2017

University of Makati
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i

Dedication

Acknowledgement

Table of Contents

Definition of Terms

List of Abbreviations

PART I - INTRODUCTION 1

Objectives

Statement of the Problem

Limitations of the Study

Conceptual Framework

PART II - REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Local Literature

Foreign Literature

PART III - METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Sources of Data
Research Instruments

PART IV DISCUSSION

PART V - FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation

Bibliography viii
Curriculum Vitae
 DEDICATION

To the citizens of this country

whose right it is to know

what goes on inside the

government

thats supposed to serve them.

And to the freedom fighters,

our struggle continues.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank our legal research adviser, Atty. Jake
J. Lopez, for his presence and availability. His input and suggestions have truly
helped this study take shape, and we will always be grateful for his underlying
patience.

I also would like to express my infinite gratitude to my parents. I would never

reach this milestone if not for your selflessness and understanding. Thank you for
strengthening me with your words of love and inspiration. Thank you for prodding me
to be better.

I also would like to thank my friends, the G5 Arlien, Rhealyn, Trixe Shaira, and
RC. Thank you for being there in times of stress and relaxation, and for being one
with us in tears and in laughter. You have made our college lives truly memorable.

And lastly, we would like to thank our amazing God, in whom we live and
move

and have our being, and by whose grace and strength we can do all things.
 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Access to information - is the notion that the public can obtain information in the
possession of the state, and in some countries private entity information, for the
purpose of being informed about the activities of the state.

Accountability is a noun that describes accepting responsibility, and it can be

personal or very public.

Government - is the system by which a state or community is controlled.

Information - is that which informs. In other words, it is the answer to a question of

some kind. It is also related to data and knowledge, as data represents values
attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or
abstract concepts.

Transparency is a characteristic of governments, companies, organizations and

individuals of being open in the clear disclosure of information rules, plans,
processes and actions
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EO - Executive Order

FOI - Freedom of Information

ICCPR International Covenant Civil and Political Rights

LGU - Local Government Units

NCR National Capital Region

PCIJ - Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

RTIA - Right to Information Act

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

What is the access to information? Do we get the transparency and

accountability of government through this access? Is this access giving us
assurance for not doing red tape or under the table transactions or a step to stop
corruption?

Access to information is the notion that the public can obtain information in
the possession of the state, and in some countries private entity information, for the
purpose of being informed about the activities of the state. Invariably, there are
some limitations on the publics ability to access certain types of documents and
information; however, decision-makers should always presume disclosure and
parliament should promote a culture of openness.

Transparency is a characteristic of governments, companies, organizations

and individuals of being open in the clear disclosure of information rules, plans,
processes and actions (Transparency International 2009: 44).

Transparency is generally regarded as a key feature of good governance,

and an essential prerequisite for accountability between states and citizens. At its
most basic, transparent governance signifies an openness of the governance
system through clear processes and procedures and easy access to public
information for citizens stimulating ethical awareness in public service through
information sharing, which ultimately ensures accountability for the performance of
the individuals and organization handling resources or holding public office.
 Transparency and accountability these are two of the weapons the citizenry
needs to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt, these are the very core of
the freedom of information bill, the bill that would enable the implementation of
Article III, section 7 of the 1987 Constitution says: 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 right to and freedom of information is not only mentioned in the Philippine
Constitution. It is also included in the 1946 declaration of the United Nations which
provides that the freedom of information is an essential factor in promoting peace
and progress in the world and as such, it is recognized as a fundamental human
right.

In fact, over 95 countries around the world have implemented freedom of

information legislation, the oldest of which is Swedens Freedom of the Press Act of
1766. The United States has the Open Records Laws, also known as Sunshine
Laws; Canada has the Access to Information Act, which allows citizens to demand
records from federal bodies. Meanwhile, Colombian has Law 57 of 1985 mandating
the publications of acts and official documents belonging to official facilities. Law 57
is further strengthened by the anti-corruption statement of Law 190 of 1955 also
known as anti-corruption act which requires public offices to list in visible areas all
the contracts and purchases made by month by month.

The rationale for the freedom of information could be traced back during the
Spanish Colonial period wherein, no Filipinos were allowed to serve in the colonial
government. The suppression of Filipino involvement in the colonial government
decision making process deprived the Filipinos of whereabouts of issues concerning
public interest.

During the American occupation, the Filipinos however, were given a chance
to participate in the government but at this time the information is limited not all the
information is given. At Japanese Occupation the press, as well as radio, was
suppressed and attacked during the Japanese occupation as all media were
controlled by the Japanese imperial army. However, underground publications by
anti-Japanese forces were disseminated.

During the Martial Law the Philippines suffered its biggest blow a day after the
proclamation of Martial Law by the late president Ferdinand Marcos. Marcos' first
order on the first day of Martial Law was the immediate closure of all news
organizations and on the next day, he ordered the arrest and interrogation of
publishers, editors, journalists, and broadcasters identified to be critical against the
government. From 21 to 23 September 1972, publication of newspapers was
suspended, and radio and television broadcasts went off air.

According to most reports and studies, the first Freedom of Information bill
was filed by then Pangasinan First District Representative Oscar Orbos in 1992.
Indeed, the first FOI bill at the House of Representatives (House) was filed by him
on August 31, 1992. However, it had been earlier filed at the Senate. Senator Alberto
G. Romulo filed the Freedom of Access to Information Act on July 1, 1992 while
Senator Raul S. Roco filed the Right to Information Act a day after. Only Rep.
Orbos version was filed at the House while two other versions were filed at the
Senate after Senators Romulo and Roco during the 9th Congress from 1992-1995.

The following Congresses saw a rise at the number of bills being filed in both
houses. During the 12th Congress, six bills were filed at the House and the seventh
was filed as a substitute for the previous ones. Meanwhile only four were filed at the
Senate.

At the 13th Congress from 2004-2007, five bills were filed at the House, with
the sixth being the substitute. Six bills were also filed in Senate. The researchers
also noticed that it was in this Congress that most of the bills filed had numerous
authors and/or sponsors unlike in previous Congresses wherein the FOI bills only
named one or two representatives as its authors (except for substitute bills).

During the 14th Congress, nine bills were filed at the House, with a 10th being
a substitute. Meanwhile, the 14th Congress saw the first substitute bill from the
Senate. Six bills were previously filed before the substitute. Finally, in the 15th
Congress (2010-2013), there are 15 FOI bills currently filed at the House with the
last being a substitute. The Senate is not far behind with 14 FOI legislations filed, the
last also a substitute.

Now we have a new president a landmark order that would require all
government offices under the executive branch to disclose details of their
transactions that has been signed by President Rodrigo Duterte in a move that
officials said would promote transparency and strengthen public participation in
governance. The executive order (EO) implementing the freedom of information
(FOI) in the executive branch was signed by Duterte in his hometown in Davao City.
According to the Communications Secretary Martin Andanar it was a record-
breaking speed of cornerstone or a milestone or landmark executive order being
signed. Out of the three government branch only in Executive branch has an access
of information, the order will not cover Congress and the Judiciary department
because of the doctrine of the separation of powers, because it would be up to the
legislature to decide whether to enact an FOI law that would cover all government
branches.

Objectives

The researcher aims to understand all the notion of having transparency and
accountability of government service. The following are the objectives of the study.

To monitor the transparency and accountability of the government

to the public.
To discuss the scope and limitation of access of information in
executive branch.
To discuss the important of access of information law.
To know the stakeholders for the development and implementation
of the access of information.
To know the current issue regarding in the transparency and
accountability of government agencies.
To know the strengtheners and weaknesses of access of
information.

Statement of the Problem

The researcher has designed question which break down the factors of the
main problem for this legal research to answer. These questions will be answered on
the succeeding chapters for this legal research.

What is the context and rationale for the passage of the Freedom of
Information Law?
 How will the freedom of Information Law be beneficial.
Who are the major stakeholders in the formulation, development and
implementation of the Freedom of Information Law?

Limitation of the Study

This research focuses on the formulation, development and implementation of

Freedom of Information Law in Executive department. Specially, this research will
revolve on a particular scope of the freedom of information law, for example,
documents which are not classified concerning national security but rather, military
procurement. Also this research focuses on how government has transparency and
accountability for all government agencies.

Conceptual Framework

The researcher chooses to slightly modify Shannon and Weavers

Communication Model. In this model, the government is the sender, and their public
information offices, as well as transcripts, records, files, archives would be the
encoder and the encoded, respectively. The decoders of the information would be
the newsmakers who interpret the encoded data from the government who would
then transmitted the simplified message through print or electronic media. This
process is not safe from noise. Information distortion is a possibility. Using print or
electronic media as channels, the message would reach the people and would then
generate positive, negative, or neutral feedback.

Using the modified version of Shannon and Weavers Model of

Communication and the allocution theory, the researcher would like to expound on
the semi-linear process of how the government chooses to keep and release
information in the public sphere through transparency and accountability. The study
would work around the assumption that, in compliance to the parameters of
democracy, as previously mentioned, the government is in itself a service center one
with a duty to its people to disclose sufficient records of their hearings, dealings, and
transactions without interfering with national security. It is helpful to note that
whatever the government releases has already been filtered, and in essence, should
not be self-destructive.

This filtered information, though already made available to the public, would
be picked up by media outfits for further interpretation, and would again be released
to the public. It is through the publics feedback, or their dealings with the
government, that they reflect the quality of information that has been given to them.
In line with this, an access of information law would ensure that the information they
receive through the media is attuned to actual government data, and would
encourage them to be more participative in the dealings of this institution. An access
of information law would allow the general public to check the facts for themselves,
commend laudable government projects, and condemn political dishonesty, as it
would give the media additional credibility, and would allow them to report the news
faster, transparent and accountable, clearer, and more accurately.
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The right of freedom to information is a necessary aspect of participatory

democracy. People cannot assert their rights if they dont know what these are.
Governments cannot be held accountable if the citizens are unaware of the actions
of the people and institutions who lead them (Coronel, 2001, p. 5)

Venkat Lyer (2012, pp.6-16) sees a number of desirable objectives in

recognizing the freedom of information (FOI):

1. Helps to make the government be accountable to the people being governed

2. By facilitating the acquisition of knowledge, it encourages self fulfillment.

3. Acts as a weapon in the fight against corruption and base of power by state

functionaries.

4. Contributes to improving the quality of official decision making

5. Enhances the participatory nature of democracy.

6. Goes some way in redressing the inherent balance in power between the citizen

and the state.

7. Strengthens the hand of the individual in his dealings with government

Thus, the main beneficiaries of having an freedom of information law is

always the public because it is able to enhance their capacity to monitor wrongdoing
and eventually enhance the transparency in governance to which the state is
supposedly committed (Teodoro, n.d.).

Foreign Literature

One of the countries that has recently passed and implemented a Freedom of
Information Act is India. Local FOI author Rep. Erin Tanada rated the bill an 8/10 in
terms of effectiveness, saying the outcomes of Indias legislation have been
significant in the countrys move toward transparency.

Before the bill was even passed, electoral candidates in India were already
required to submit affidavits containing their financial and criminal antecedents
while filing nominations (Daruwala and Nayak, 2007) as the Elections Commission
publishes the information on its website.

In 2002, Indias Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission of India
collect these affidavits and publicize them. This ruling was in response to a public
interest litigation case filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms on the same
year. Political parties rallied together and even got the Union Government to pass an
ordinance that nullified the courts order. However in 2003, the court struck the
ordinance down stating that it violated the voters fundamental right to information
(Daruwala and Nayak, 2007).

In 2005, Indias freedom of information bill, dubbed the Right to Information

Act (RTIA) of 2005, was put into action. According to Prof. Alasdair Roberts who
published a paper on the RTIAs first four years of performance, citizens have been
enthusiastic about the law, actively making use of it as evidenced by two million
requests filed in its first two and a half years.

Most of those requests are directed to offices of state and local government.
Many requests are intended to prod officials to deliver promised services and
benefitssuch as rationed food, backpay and pensions, roads and other
public works, or teachers for primary schools. Local action groups are
 learning how to integrate the law into their campaigns against corruption. In
one extraordinary case, non-governmental groups in Orissa used the RTIA to
show that official and businessmen had stolen four million kilograms of rice
intended for distribution to the poor (Roberts, 2010).

Indias RTIA is a decentralized law, being implemented in more than thirty five
state and territorial governments within the country. Much is still to be improved on
as implementation is uneven, varying per state, yet, this unevenness presents
opportunities for these bodies to innovate (Roberts, 2010). One innovation is the
Jaankari call center, which was undertaken by the state government of Bihar in
partnership with a non-governmental organization, Parivartan. This call center allows
individuals to make RTI requests through a single toll-free number. Service is
provided in four languages. The application fee is charged to the caller's phone bill,
and a reply is sent directly from the PIO. (Centre for Good Governance and Price
Waterhouse Coopers as cited in Roberts, 2010).

Aside from the innovations in implementation, the RTIA can be considered

more advanced than other FOIAs in terms of provisions. According to Aruna Roy of
The Guardian, the United Kingdom should learn from RTIA, as it is has greater
control in terms of penalties for non-compliance in supplying information. If an official
fails to give or delays information, a fine of 250 rupees would be collected per day.

The RTIA also has more ground in getting information from private
companies. It recognizes that transactions and deals are not carried out by
government alone, but with the assistance and funding of private entities and non-
governmental bodies. In effect, the RTIA extends to non-governmental
organizations that are substantially financed, directly or indirectly by government...
No other FOIA-style law has a similar rule (Roberts, 2010).

According to Pres. Woodrow Wilson everybody knows that corruption thrives

in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that
secrecy means impropriety, s (cited in Wilson and Hale, 1918). Wilsons statement,
like Benthams above, and re-iterated by many others7 implies that transparency will
expose secrecy, corruption and inefficiency, and bring about a more representative,
participatory democracy (Bannister and Connolly, 2011; Gaventa and McGee, 2013;
Hood, 2006; Joshi, 2013; Roberts, 2010; UNDP, 2006).

However, Jonathan Fox (2007) makes the insightful point that transparency
can be just as opaque as clear the former when information is merely made
available transparency in name only; it then needs to be analyzed and made
accessible in order to become clear or real (our interpretation) transparency. Also,
transparency may not necessarily be beneficial, depending on the information. There
are different levels and types of transparency, both points which become relevant
when we discuss ICTs, including those which help people make FOI requests.

Transparency is ineffective without accountability the relationship between

the power holder (account provider) and delegator (account demander). And the
evolution from transparency to accountability is equally dependent on a number of
factors, not least of which is citizen participation the presence of bodies and
movements who question, engage in sufficient collective action and decision-
making, and have the power to impose sanctions of one kind of another (Fung,
2006). Schedler divides accountability into answerability and enforcement (Schedler,
1999) governments need to be answerable, but their responses also need to be
monitored and enforced again, subtle but important between two.

Local Literature
 Freedom of Information Act in the Philippines is making headway into
mainstream consciousness as a greater chunk of the population clamors for a clean,
transparent, and accountable government. In May 2012, the most powerful man in
the judiciary, former Chief Justice Renato Corona, was impeached due to
inaccuracies in his filed Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). On
May 29, 2012, he was convicted by a 20-3 vote in the Senate.

According to the Ateneo School of Government Dean Tony La Via, writes

that the most critical lesson from the impeachment and conviction of Renato Corona
is that the Philippines need to pass a Freedom of Information Act as soon as
possible.

The fruits of the impeachment process will be best preserved if the Filipino
people can help create a culture of accountability and trust between the
leader and the led. FOI is a powerful tool to achieve that, to pre-empt
corruption by improving deterrence and enhancing citizen participation in
governance.

The approach also cultivates the healthy leader-led relationship so essential

to public support and trust in government. With the impeachment of Renato Corona,
we have shown the viability of accountability from above. We, the Filipino people,
must now complete the picture, and provide accountability from below. From
penalizing officials, we must now help them make Philippine governance and
accountability work (La Via, 2012).

In actuality, findings from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

(PCIJ) state that when asked for the most basic documents such as records on
health, education, public safety, business, SALNs, and civil registry and property,
Local Government Units (LGUs) of the National Capital Region (NCR) are slow to
address requests, having a tendency to neglect deadlines determined by regulation.
The PCIJ noticed that the referral system in between offices unnecessarily hinders
the process of attaining information.
 According to the PCIJ, the apparent inability of majority of Metro Manila local
governments to respond quickly and fully to citizen requests for asset disclosure
records of local officials, as well as documents on education, health, public safety
and other essential services may well be a reflection of the Aquino administrations
own dithering over a Freedom of information.
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This legal research indicates an emphasis on the qualities of entities

and on processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined or measured
in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. It focuses the socially and
legally constructed nature of reality, the close relationship between the researcher
and what is studied, and the situational limitations that form question.

Research Design

This legal research used to apply reliable method where it is used to observe
real-world situation, it develops specific statements about constructed realities of all
the key participants in this research, it is also interpretive in nature where the point of
view of the researcher is included.

Sources of Data

The researcher gathered different opinions, laws, articles and journals are
used to process this legal research. It is also derived from carefully review of the
different data related to this research. It also uses personal insights as the important
part of the query and crucial to understand. This legal research strive without
judgment on the key participants of this research. It shows openness, sensitivity,
respect, awareness, and responsiveness in all aspects involved in this research.
This research is mindful of and attentive to system and situational dynamics.
 CHAPTER

DISCUSSION

In recent years, the Philippines has been hailed among the most corrupt
countries in the Asia; gaining top ranking with a score of 9.4 out of 10 (0 being the
least corrupt and 10 the most) in a 2015 survey among foreign investors conducted
by the Political & Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC). In 2015, the countrys rate
dipped to a 9.8, poorer that 2013s score of 8.25. While there has been a drastic
change in the figures from 2015, it is safe to say that the country still suffers from
widespread fraudulence.

President Aquinos 2010 presidential campaign banked on the slogan Kung

walang corrupt, walang mahirap and has promised to push for transparency and
government accountability as a means to end corruption. But after three years, the
presidents promise to support the passage of the FOI bill has failed to be
concretized into actions.

Freedom of information is a key component of a true democracy and is

guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution under the Bill of Rights, Article III Section 7
which states:

Sec.7. 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.

This right to information is also recognized in international law. Article 19 of

the Universal of Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), adopted in 1948,
acknowledges that:
 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Meanwhile, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),

signed by over 150 countries including the Philippines, also included provisions
similar to the UNDHR. According to Article 19 of ICCPR:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of opinion.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through
any other media of his choice.

Freedom of information is a vital component in the workings of a free press

which in turn is a necessary condition for an informed citizenry. Citizens can only
exercise their rights fully or participate in decision making processes if they have
access to reliable information. This is so democracy can be more enhanced by
people who engage with their government institutions and voice out opinions based
on facts and evidence. In a democratic state, freedom of information allows citizens
to remain in control of the functions of the government composed of officials whom
they themselves elected into office.

They would get to know whats happening inside the bureaucracy, said
Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, one of the authors of the consolidated FOI bill in the
Senate. Being voters, they have that right to demand certain information and make
the seating administration more responsible and accountable for their actions (A.
Trillanes, personal communication, January 21, 2013).

Quezon province fourth district representative Lorenzo Tanada III, one of the
FOI champions in the 15th congress, added that, as part of good governance
citizens help the governments performs its duty by getting the information [they]
need. They are able to monitor if the government is using their resources correctly or
not. (L. Tanada, personal communication, December 10, 2012).

As there is no current law providing mechanics for the compulsory duty of

offices to disclose transactions of public demand, having a bill that would guarantee
this freedom of information becomes a necessity in order to address concerns such
as the lack of a definite and speedy procedure as well as a definite scope for the
access to information and the penalties for violating such.

In a manifesto, the Bantay FOI! Sulong FOI! Network said there is a need for
a Freedom of Information law to institutionalize transparency as the mandatory
norm, rather than a discretionary matter, for all elective and appointive officials,
across all branches of government.

Attorney Nepomuceno Malaluan, convener of Right to Know, Right Now

Movement told Transparency reporting.net that passage of the bill will give the
current government credibility and moral high ground in its anti-corruption drive,
adding that in contrast, failure to pass the bill exposes its anti-corruption stance as
mere rhetoric; it betrays the trust that the people gave it in the last elections.

According to most reports and studies, the first Freedom of Information bill
was filed by then Pangasinan First District Representative Oscar Orbos in 1992.
Indeed, the first FOI bill at the House of Representatives (House) was filed by him
on August 31, 1992. However, it had been earlier filed at the Senate. Senator Alberto
G. Romulo filed the Freedom of Access to Information Act on July 1, 1992 while
Senator Raul S. Roco filed the Right to Information Act a day after. Only Rep.
Orbos version was filed at the House while two other versions were filed at the
Senate after Senators Romulo and Roco during the 9th Congress from 1992-1995.

The following Congresses saw a rise at the number of bills being filed in both
houses. During the 12th Congress, six bills were filed at the House and the seventh
was filed as a substitute for the previous ones. Meanwhile only four were filed at the
Senate.
 At the 13th Congress from 2004-2007, five bills were filed at the House, with
the sixth being the substitute. Six bills were also filed in Senate. The researchers
also noticed that it was in this Congress that most of the bills filed had numerous
authors and/or sponsors unlike in previous Congresses wherein the FOI bills only
named one or two representatives as its authors (except for substitute bills).

During the 14th Congress, nine bills were filed at the House, with a 10th being
a substitute. Meanwhile, the 14th Congress saw the first substitute bill from the
Senate. Six bills were previously filed before the substitute. Finally, in the 15th
Congress (2010-2013), there are 15 FOI bills currently filed at the House with the
last being a substitute. The Senate is not far behind with 14 FOI legislations filed, the
last also a substitute.

Now we have a new president a landmark order that would require all
government offices under the executive branch to disclose details of their
transactions that has been signed by President Rodrigo Duterte in a move that
officials said would promote transparency and strengthen public participation in
governance. The executive order (EO) implementing the freedom of information
(FOI) in the executive branch was signed by Duterte in his hometown in Davao City.
According to the Communications Secretary Martin Andanar it was a record-
breaking speed of cornerstone or a milestone or landmark executive order being
signed. Out of the three government branch only in Executive branch has an access
of information, the order will not cover Congress and the Judiciary department
because of the doctrine of the separation of powers, because it would be up to the
legislature to decide whether to enact an FOI law that would cover all government
branches.

The Executive order will cover all government offices under the executive
branch including the national government and all its offices, departments, bureaus,
offices and instrumentalities. It will also be implemented in state-run firms,
universities and colleges.
The order defined information as the following:

records

documents

papers

letters and reports

contracts

minutes and transcripts of official meetings

maps

books

photographs

data

research materials

sound and video recording

magnetic or other tapes

electronic data

computer stored data or other like or similar data or materials

recorded stored archived or whatever format

 Every Filipino citizen shall have access to information, official records public
records and documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and
decision as well as government research data used as basis for public development.
However, this law has exception. This will be denied if they fall under exceptions
provided in the constitution, laws or jurisprudence. The Justice department and the
solicitor general's office were directed to come up with an inventory of exceptions
and submit them to Pres. Duterte within 30 calendar days from the effectivity date of
the order.

The inventory of exceptions will be updated periodically to reflect changes in

existing laws and jurisprudence. The information that would not be released is those
put the government in danger in terms of national security. The officials who refuse
to release information that do not fall within the exceptions may face administrative
charges.

The order also reminded officials to file and to make available their
statements of assets liabilities and net worth. The head of the government office,
which has custody or control of the information being sought or his duly designated
official will determine whether the exceptions are applicable to the request. All heads
of offices or their duly designated representatives were ordered to exercise
reasonable diligence to ensure that the exceptions or denials of requests would not
be used to cover up a crime or any wrongdoing like graft or corruption.

There shall be a legal presumption of favor of access to information, public

records and official records. No request for info shall be denied unless it clearly falls
under any of the exceptions listed in the inventory or updated inventory of
exceptions. While officials were directed to provide public access to information, they
were also instructed to observe and protect the right to privacy of individuals.
Government offices in the executive branch were directed to ensure that personal
information would only be released if relevant to the request and if the EO or by laws
and regulations allow such disclosure. They were also tasked to make reasonable
security arrangements against leaks or premature disclosure of personal information
that might subject one to harassment, vilification and other wrongful acts.
 Those who wish to request for information shall write a letter to the
government agency concerned. The letter should state the name and contact
information of the one making the request. Requesting parties should also present a
valid proof of identification or authorization, describe the information being sought
and state the reason for doing so. Government officials receiving the request are
required to provide free "reasonable assistance" to all requesting parties.
Government offices shall respond to all requests that complied with all requirements
within 15 working days starting from the date the request was received. The
response refers to the decision of the office to grant or deny access to the
information requested.
However, the period to respond may be extended whenever the information
requested requires extensive search of the government's office records or the
examination of voluminous records. The response period may also be prolonged
when unexpected or fortuitous events happen. Government offices will be required
to notify the requesting party of the extension. In no case shall the extension go
beyond 20 working days unless exceptional circumstances warrant a longer period.
Failure to notify the requesting party of the action taken on the request within the 15-
day period will be viewed as a denial of the request.
The requested documents will not come for free. While government offices
will not charge any fee for accepting requests for access to information, they may
ask the requesting party to shoulder the costs incurred in reproducing the
information sought.
In no case shall the applicable fees be so onerous as to defeat the purpose of
this order. Denial of any request for information may be appealed to the person or
office next higher in authority. The one who made the request should submit a
written appeal within 15 calendar days from the notice of denial or from the lapse of
the response period. The next higher authority shall decide on the appeal within 30
working days from the filing of the written appeal. Once all administrative appeal
remedies have been exhausted, the requesting party may file a case before the
court.
 All agencies were asked to come up with their respective procedures on
freedom of information within 120 days from the effectivity of the Executive order.
The government will also prepare a People's FOI Manual that will include the
location and contact details of offices where the public can submit requests and the
schedule of applicable fees.
However, we also need to know how the important of access of information
law in executive department. Well, first of all it's a constitutional provision - Article 3
Section 7, and it makes good governance, transparency, and accountability a reality.
If we look at it, if we have information, we can ensure that there is good governance.
We can also be sure that we can hold people accountable. The constitution and
everything's transparent. So I believe it's an important piece of legislation and we
even say it's the essence of democracy people's participation because we engage
the government and ask the government "what are you doing? Are you doing things
correctly?"
Well, for all head agencies that under of executive branch, they become more
transparent with whatever they're doing. For example, whatever fund the
government gives them for their agencies and district, they should be more
transparent about it. The agencies and districts also should know, the local officials
should know how funds are being used, how projects are being spent for, whether
they're overpriced or not. So it's safe to say that this changes the paradigm. So at
this point we all known our funds is going to good.
Access of information to government records is needed for effectively
monitoring government activities. The ability of citizens to hold government
accountable may be directly related to their ability to see what information is
collected, how it is maintained, who it is about, and how it is used. Journalists often
stand in for the general public when they investigate public matters using records
held by the government. The watchdog press makes regular use of information held
by governments.

In a variety of ways, information held by the government can be used to bring

people together. Public record information can provide both the media and others
with valuable information that identifies people who live in a certain area or who are
involved in a certain line of business. State records can link individuals to specific
information (such as genealogical records, financial needs, hobbies, and business
interests) and provide interested parties with the information necessary to make
valuable contacts. Public record information can also help track down missing family
members, heirs, other beneficiaries, witnesses, tax evaders, and deadbeat parents.

Access of information to government also may smooth the flow of

commerce and create economic efficiencies. Insurance companies, credit bureaus
and, direct-marketing organizations use government records to obtain a large
volume of information that may otherwise not be cost-effectively available. They use
it to offer people products that benefit them. When business can collect information
about potential customers from a central repository like a government database,
they can pass the savings along to consumers.

Access of information also protects public safety. Records of arrests and

convictions, for example, help people determine whether they want to hire
prospective employees for sensitive jobs. They may help people learn of and
respond to dangerous people living in their communities. Access to government
information may also protect against crimes like identity fraud by enabling people
and companies to confirm who they are dealing with. All these benefits do not justify
depriving people of privacy by forcing them to hand information over to
governments. Governments should minimize the personal information that they
collect. If information must be collected, however, there are substantial reasons to
make it accessible.

Access of information law would not be make without the blessing the
blessing of lawmakers and the president of the Philippines. Senators have hailed the
signing by President Rodrigo Duterte of an executive order mandating freedom of
information in the Executive branch, but said they will definitely push for enactment
of long-stalled legislation that covers the entire bureaucracy.
 The determination to push an FOI bill -- one was passed on third reading in
the 16th Senate but still-born in the House of Representatives -- was signaled by
several senators led by incoming Senate President Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III, right
after Malacaang Palace announced that Duterte signed Saturday night the
executive order on FOI, which he promised as soon as he won the May 9 elections.

Those who also indicated full support for a comprehensive legislation that
brings freedom of information beyond the Executive were Senators Grace Poe,
Ralph Recto, Kiko Pangilinan and Juan Edgardo Angara.

Pangilinan said an FOI bill is part of his priority legislation as come backing
senator. The proposed Senate measure shall grant full public disclosure by all
branches of government of all public documents and information pertaining to official
transactions, decisions, contracts, appointments, and policies involving public
interest except for information relating to matters of national security that may
endanger the country, he added.

Recto said the FOI order Duterte signed should cut red tape in public offices
and lead to shorter periods and simpler processes in accessing government
services.

Theres one important benchmark by which this FOI order should be

measured, on how fast government permits can be secured, Recto said.

Clear, concise, cheaper way of getting government documents like passports and
licenses, Recto recalled that the FOI bill passed by the Senate in the past Congress
clearly mandated offices to describe frontline services they deliver and the
procedure and length of time by which they may be availed of. It is also not enough,
he stressed, that the public is allowed access to public documents -- it is also
important that documents are written in a language they can easily understand.

The Senate version of the FOI bill, Recto said, called for the use of plain
language in official documents and communication and their translation into the
vernacular. So that official documents can be available online, Recto said the newly-
formed Department of Information and Communications Technology should
spearhead the establishment of an infrastructure that would place public records on
ICT platforms.

Last on the objective is the strength and weaknesses of access of information

law. The strengths are obvious people can research official documents that enable
them to have a greater understanding of what happened, which decisions were
made by whom. Being able to access the truth behind incidents and ensure history
is recorded and fairly.

The weaknesses are less apparent (unless we are an official with something
to hide) and with open government being the modern way of doing business the
problems should lessen over time. However, some information is kept secret some is
still exempt to protect the integrity of people and organizations and to allow
professionals the freedom to contribute reports. Knowing they will be seen by those
who need to but not everyone well at least for several years anyway. I think the
greatest weakness is that about serves to protect the secrecy so politicians can say
it is a matter of public record and will be available under the freedom of information
law, knowing that wont be for several years. A politicians career is often shorter than
the law allows disclosure and so they guilty are not called to public account. Military
secrets are routinely exempt and the survivors and bereaved may never know the
truth. In short the weakness is it doesnt go far enough.

Transparency is key in a country with a history of corrupt government officials.

We need transparency to hold the officials more accountable to their action. Once
we achieve that, public servants will always have the trust of the people.
 CHAPTER V

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Summary

In the objectives of this study, the researchers aimed (1) To monitor the
transparency and accountability of the government to the public. (2) To know the
scope and limitation of access of information in executive branch. (3) To discuss the
important of access of information law. (4) To know the stakeholders for the
development and implementation of the access of information. (5) To know the
current issue regarding in the transparency and accountability of government
agencies. (6) To know the strengtheners and weaknesses of access of information.
With regard to the first and third objectives, the researchers found that the
government agencies and other department that under to executive branch they
work in appropriate way. Also the researcher they know the scope and limitation of
the FOI law, especially the exceptions of this law like the information that would not
be released is those put the government in danger in terms of national security. The
officials who refuse to release information that do not fall within the exceptions may
face administrative charges. The researcher also knew when the freedom of
information was passed in the house and the congress. In the third objective the
researcher founds the important of freedom of information it makes good
governance, transparency, and accountability a reality. If we look at it, if we have
information, we can ensure that there is good governance. We can also be sure that
we can hold people accountable. The constitution and everything's transparent. So I
believe it's an important piece of legislation and we even say it's the essence of
democracy people's participation because we engage the government and ask the
government "what are you doing? Are you doing things correctly?"
The researcher discussed also the stakeholders of freedom of information
and the strength and weakness of freedom of information. Access of information law
would not be make without the blessing the blessing of lawmakers and the president
of the Philippines. Last objective is the strength and the weakness of access of
information. The strength is Filipino citizen has known if what government do, and
also they able to be transparent accountable to all information that they give.
However, the weakness is to take advantage to the exception.
Conclusion

I conclude that access of information is very important in a government and

other agencies that need of access of information, because of this information we
promote the transparency and accountability in government especially in executive
branch. This new law that pushes of lawmakers it has big part in government even
if they cant pass to the two branch of government the judiciary and to the congress.

These laws it help to the Filipino citizen to have interest to cooperate in

government because they have information about what government do.
Transparency is key in a country with a history of corrupt government officials. We
need transparency to hold the officials more accountable to their action. Once we
achieve that, public servants will always have the trust of the people.

Recommendation

The researchers have a two-fold recommendation for the improvement of this

study and the furtherance of the access of information. One addressed to their fellow
students, and to government.
 For students that those who plan to delve further into this topic, the
researchers recommend conducting more sources and have a patient to do this
legal research.

For government they need to push the access of information to all branch of
government, not only in executive. If we passed into all government branches may
be have a chance to lessen the corruption and Filipino citizen they would be back
their trust in government

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

The 1987 Philippine Constitution

Executive Order No 2, s 2016
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Secondary Sources

Alex Romero , 140718-duterte-signs-executive-order-freedom-of-information

Dyer, A., Hayden, M., Lanctot, D. (n.d.). The Shannon and Weaver model
defined. Information Theory Presentation. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/lsc/Faculty/Carson/508/03Website/Hayden/ShanWea
v.ht ml
Introduction, J. M. (n.d.). The World's First Freedom of Information Act
(Sweden/Finland 1766). Scribd. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5885744/The-Worlds-First-Freedom-of-
Information- Act-SwedenFinland-1766
Iyer, V. (2001). Freedom of information: An Asian survey. Singapore: Asian
Media Information and Communication Centre.
 La Via, T. (n.d.). 8 lessons from the Corona impeachment trial. Rappler.
Retrieved September 18, 2012, from http://www.rappler.com/thought-
leaders/6351-8-lessons- from-the-corona-impeachment-trial
Right to Know, Right Now Coalition (2012, 5 September). Kill Bill take 2? FOI
death by inaction looms in Congress. National Union of Journalists of the
Philippines. Retrieved March 23, 2013 from http://www.nujp.org/2012/09/kill-
bill-take-2-foi- death-by-inaction-looms-in-congress/
Roberts, Alasdair S., A Great and Revolutionary Law? The First Four Years of
Indias Right to Information Act (January 9, 2010). Public Administration
Review; Suffolk University Law School Research Paper No. 10-02.