FINAL FINAL OUTLINE [with color coding]:

The Freedom of Information Act of 2009: A

Primer
Pola

Rosie

Michael

Objective: To outline a comprehensive rationale for freedom of

information
I. Primer

a. History of the Bill

b. Background

c. Timeline of legislation

d. Freedom of information in the country

II. Necessity

a. Legal basis

b. Bill of Rights provision

c. Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials (RA 6713)

d. Article 19 of the UDHR states

III. Clamor
 a. letter to speaker Nograles signed by reps of 70 organizations

b. collection of petitions and letters from Right To Know, right now

campa

c. AER

IV. Urgency

a. National Elections (automation)

b. Maguindanao massacre, plight of journalist

c. ZTE

V. Model: SB 3308:

a. Enabling laws for the FOIA

b. Description of the Senate bill according to questions in four areas

i. Part I – Rosie

ii. Part
II – Rosie

iii. Part
III – Rosie

iv. Part V
– Michael

c. Comparison with House Bill

VI. Comparison of FOIA from other Countries

a. Comparing the models of three other democratic countries

i. United States

ii. Japan

iii. Singapore

VII. Advantages and Disadvantages

VIII. Recommendation and Conclusion

______________________________________
____________
Notes:

II. Model

Discussion on the law itself

First we describe the law, and then we refer to the questions (below) and answer the most
important

• Mechanism: discuss key provisions and compare the house and senate bills
• Actors
• Budget
• Scope - limitations and exceptions
• Safeguard

http://www.opengovjournal.org/article/view/5167/3628

http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/foi-as-an-international-right.pdf
I

A. Who can request records?

1. Status of requestor
2. Purpose of request
3. Use of records
B. Whose records are and are not subject to the act?
1. Executive branch
a. Records of the executives themselves
b. Records of certain but not all functions
2. Legislative bodies
3. Courts
4. Nongovernmental bodies
a. Bodies receiving public funds or benefits
b. Bodies whose members include governmental officials.
5. Multi-state or regional bodies
6. Advisory boards and commissions, quasi-governmental entities.
7. Others
C. What records are and are not subject to the act?
1. What kinds of records are covered?
2. What physical form of records are covered?
3. Are certain records available for inspection but not copying?
D. Fee provisions or practices
1. Levels or limitations on fees.
2. Particular fee specifications or provisions.
a. Search
b. Duplication
c. Other
3. Provisions for fee waivers
4. Requirements or prohibitions regarding advance payment
5. Have agencies imposed prohibitive fees to discourage requesters?
E. Who enforces the act?
1. Attorney [Solicitor] General's role
2. Availability of an ombudsman
3. Commission or agency enforcement

F. Are there sanctions for noncompliance?

II. Exemptions and other Legal Limitations

A. Exemptions in the open records statute.

1. Character of exemptions
a. General or specific
b. Mandatory or discretionary
2. Discussion of each exemption
III. Law on Electronic Records
A. Can the requester choose a format for receiving records?
B. Can the requester obtain a customized search of computer databases to fit particular needs?
C. Does the existence of information in electronic format affect its openness?
D. How is email treated?
E. Is software public?
F. How are fees for electronic records assessed?
G. Money-making schemes
1. Revenues
2. Geographic Location Systems
H. Online dissemination

IV. Record categories - Open or Closed

A. Autopsy reports
B. Bank Records
C. Business records, financial data, trade secrets.
D. Contracts, proposals, and bids.
E. Collective bargaining records.
F. Coroner's reports
G. Election records
H. Gun permits
I. Hospital permits
J. Personnel records
1. Salary
2. Disciplinary records
2. Police blotter.
3. 911 tapes.
4. Investigatory records.
a. Rules for active investigations
b. Rules for closed investigations
5. Arrest records
6. Compiliations of criminal histories
7. Victims
8. Confessions
9. Confidential informants
10. Police techniques
11. Mug shots
L. Prison, parole, and probation reports
M. Public utility records
N. Real estate appraisals, negotiations.
O. School and university records
1. Athletic records
2. Trustee records
3. Student records
4. Other
P. Vital statistics
1. Birth certificates
2. Marriage and divorce
3. Death certificates
V. Procedure for obtaining records

A. How to start
1. Who receives a request?
2. Does the law cover oral requests?
a. Arrangements to inspect and copy
b. If an oral request is denied:
1. How does the requester memorialize the refusal?
2. Do subsequent steps need to be in writing?
3. Contents of a written request
a. Description of the records
b. Need to address fee issues

c. Plea for quick response.

d. Can they request for future records?

e. Other

B. How long to wait.

1. Statutory, regulatory or court-set time limits for agency response.

2. Informal telephone inquiry as to status.

3. Is delay recognized as a denial for appeal purposes?

4. Any other recourse to encourage a response.

C. Administrative appeal

1. Time limit.

2. To whom is an appeal directed?

a. Individual agencies.

b. A state commission or ombudsman.

c. State attorney general.

3. Fee issues.

4. Content of appeal letter.

a. Description of records or portions of records denied

b. refuting the reasons for denial.

5. Waiting for a response.

 6. Subsequent remedies.

D. Court action.

1. Who may sue?

2. Priority.

3. Pro se.

4. Issues the court will address:

a. Denial

b. Fees for records.

c. Delays.

d. Patterns for future access (Declaratory judgment).

5. Pleading format.

6. Time limit for filing suit.

7. What court.

8. Judicial remedies available

9. Courts and attorneys fees

10. Fines.

11. Other penalties

12. Settlement pros and cons

E. Appealing initial court decisions.
1. Appeal routes.
2. Time Limits for filing appeals.
3. Contact of interested amici.

F. Addressing government suits against disclosure.

III. Advantages and Disadvantages

IV. Comparison with FOIA from other countries: [all democracies,

c/o supermichael
V. Conclusion

Questions and Recommendation

• Chiz Escudero: ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRENGTHEN FOIA

• money making schemes to support the added cost of FOIA

Timeline + background info

May 6, 2008 - HB 3732, entitled An Act Implementing the Right of Access to Information on
Matters of Public Concern Guaranteed Under Section Twenty-Eight, Article II and Section Seven,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution and for Other Purposes,” a substitute for bills 194, 997, 1665,
2021, 2059, 2176, 2223, 2293 and 3116, is brought to the House floor.

May 12, 2009 - HB 3732 passes its second reading.

June 3, 2009 - Committee Report 534 is filed, regarding Senate Bill 3308 (The Freedom of
Information Act of 2009) substituting SBs No. 16 (Revilla), 109 (Roxas), 576 (Estrada), 592
(Estrada), 1578 (Villar), 2571 (Legarda), and 3273 (Cayetano, A., Cayetano, P., and Zubiri),
taking into consideration HBN 3732 (Angara, Del Mar, Villanueva, et al.) and SRN 11 (Estrada).
Sponsors: Senators Alan Peter Cayetano and Antonio Trillanes IV.

December 14, 2009 - The Senate votes 12-0 to approve FOIA on 3rd reading. Senators who
signed the measure are Francis Escudero, Francis Pangilinan, Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III,
Rodolfo Biazon, Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel, Jr. Panfilo Lacson, Richard Gordon, Miriam Defensor-
Santiago, Gregorio Honasan, Edgardo Angara, and Joker Arroyo.

January 31, 2010 - Bicameral committee approves FOIA.

February 1, 2010 - Senate ratifies bicameral version of FOIA. House approval needed.

February 3, 2010 - Congress adjourns for the 2010 elections. FOIA is left hanging.

February 14, 2010 - ATIN writes to Speaker Prospero Nograles:

http://www.aer.ph/images/stories/projects/id/nograles-letter-14%20feb%202010-final.pdf

May 31 to June 4, 2010 - Last week of 14th Congressional sessions; FOIA hoped to be passed
within this week.

Benefits

· Morse, Jane “Freedom of Information Laws benefit Government and Public”

14 December 2006 USINFO article
Washington -- Freedom of information (FOI) laws benefit both the public and the
government, although governments are sometimes reluctant to adopt them, says William
 Ferroggiaro, a Washington-based writer and consultant with more than 15 years of
experience as an advocate for government accountability.
Ferroggiaro spoke with participants from Egypt, Guyana, Macedonia, Madagascar, Pakistan
and other parts of the world during a USINFO Webchat December 14.
In the United States, the Freedom of Information Act ensures the public's right to access
U.S. government records and is an important component of ensuring the government's
accountability to the people it serves, Ferroggiaro said.
The act prevents the creation of secret laws and regulations, he said. Through it, he
added, “the public can have access to documents, although after the fact, that discuss
policies that affect their daily lives. Knowing that the public will find out about ill-conceived
ideas potentially prevents those ideas from being put forward.”
For the government, freedom of information laws provide a legal mechanism for disclosure
of information and improve credibility before the public, Ferroggiaro said.
The U.S. Freedom of Information Act was passed by Congress in 1966 and went into effect
in 1967. There were “a lot of political battles,” however, to make it the law of the land,
Ferroggiaro acknowledged. Currently, more than 70 countries have some legal right of
access to information, he said.
“But it is difficult for countries anywhere to enact and implement such laws,” Ferroggiaro
said. Although the United Kingdom enacted its law in 2002, he noted, the law went into
effect only recently.
“It is difficult for governments to see the benefit of public access to information,” he said.
“And in developing countries, FOI may not seem like the first priority against other
pressing needs. But countries like India and South Africa have demonstrated that FOI or
right to information is absolutely essential to enabling other human rights, such as right to
food and water, right to shelter, let alone freedom of expression.
“In developing countries that have a law, there is great expectation that it will reduce
corruption and some evidence of that, but it is also a long struggle that must go forward
with other complementary initiatives for justice, such as judicial reform,” Ferroggiaro said.
“Information is the lifeblood of democracy,” he said, “and we must remain forever vigilant
to protect that right.”
· Egan, Patrick. "Costly Monitoring: Using Positive Theory to Analyze the
Implications of the Freedom of Information Act" Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA, Aug 27, 2003
ABSTRACT: There is little empirical or formal research conducted by political scientists on
freedom of information (FOI) laws. Those who have studied FOI laws have portrayed them
as tools that help legislatures monitor bureaucracies at a lower cost than direct monitoring.
In this paper, I formally model the effects of FOI laws to argue that such monitoring comes
at a cost: it brings agency actions to the attention of the public, leading to a shift of policy
toward the preferences of the median voter. In some cases, this shift is in the legislature’s
interest. But in others, it is not. Self-interested, rational legislators therefore do not always
have the incentive to adopt and expand FOI laws. I support this analytical finding with
examples from the 40-year legislative history of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, and
lay out additional testable hypotheses that are yielded by my theory.
· Freedom of Information Around the World 2006 Report 20/09/2006
Privacyinternational.org
Privacy International released the Freedom of Information Around the World 2006: Global
Survey of Access to Government Information Laws on 20 September 2006. The Survey
provides a comprehensive review of Freedom of Information Laws and practices in nearly
70 countries around the world.
The survey draws attention to the growing movement around the world to adopt FOI laws.
In just the past two years, over a dozen countries have adopted new laws and decrees,
while dozens more are considering proposals. Important international treaties such as the
UN Convention Against Corruption have also gone into force. These laws are being used to
 fight corruption, make government bodies accountable and promote social and human
rights.
Unfortunately, the survey also highlights that many problems still exist such as poorly
drafted laws, lax implementation and an ongoing culture of secrecy in many countries.
There are also dangers in backsliding such as in Ireland where the imposition of onerous
fees has significantly reduced use of the law and in the United Kingdom where a similar
proposal is being considered. New laws promoting secrecy in the global war on terror have
also undercut access.

Key Provisions

· Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. (a) "Information…."

· Sec. 7. Exceptions.
· Sec. 9. Procedure of Access. ( c) The government agency shall comply with such
request within seven (7) calendar days form the receipt thereof. (f) The time limits
prescribed in this Section for the production of the requested information may be extended
wherever there is a need for any of the following… (g) The government agency shall, in
writing or through electronic means, notify the person making the request of the extension,
setting forth the reasons for such extension and the date when the information requested
shall be made available: Provided, that no such notice shall specify a date that would result
in an extension of more than fifteen (15) calendar days from the original deadline.
· Sec. 11. Notice of Denial
· Sec. 12. Implementation Requirements. (a) For the effective implementation of this
Act, every government agency shall prepare a Freedom of Information Manual, which shall
include the following information…
· Sec. 13. Remedies in Cases of Denial.
· Sec. 14. Mandatory Disclosure of Transactions Involving Public Interest. (a) Subject
to Sections 7 and 8 of this Act, all government agencies shall upload on their websites, which
shall be regularly updated every fifteen (15) days, all the steps, negotiations and key
government positions pertaining to definite propositions of the government, as well as the
contents of the contract, agreement or treaty in the following transactions involving public
interest…
· Sec. 15. Promotion of Openness in Government (c) accessibility of language and form
[just thought that was interesting. :)]
· Sec. 16. Criminal Liability and Administrative Liability.

Useful Related Laws

This is contained in the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials (RA 6713). It
states: “All public officials and employees shall, within 15 working days from receipt thereof,
respond to letters, telegrams, or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply
must contain the action taken on the request.”

Excerpt from Nepomuceno Malalan's article: Right to know right now!

http://www.pcij.org/resources/nepo-malaluan-right-to-know-right-now.pdf

Our fundamental law finds support in emerging international law on right to information. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) adopted by the UN General
Assembly in 1966 are considered by many to be a codification or evidence of international custom
or general principles of law binding even upon non-state parties. Article 19 of the UDHR states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media

and regardless of frontiers.” The same is also embodied in Article 19 (2) of the ICCPR. These
provisions are increasingly being regarded as embodying a distinct right to information. In his fifth
report as UN Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Abid Hussain (India) stated that “the right to
seek and receive information is not simply a converse of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression but a freedom on its own.”

COMPARISONS WITH OTHER MODELS

COMPARISON OF HOUSE AND SENATE VERSION

i've got the perfect file, its a chart comparing the two
bills with a third column siting the exact changes

IMPORTANCE of FOIA, URGENCY and PUBLIC

CLAMOR

• Since the drafting of the 1987 constitution which held provisions for public's right to
information (Bill of Rights), it has taken two decades for an actual FOIA to come about and
the failure of its enactment before Congress ends session will mean that the bill will have
to go through the whole process again.
• Maguindanao massacre justifies FOIA (see article below)
• FOIA would prove useful in the upcoming presidential elections, given that we are about to
undertake automation for the very first time

March set today for info law OK

http://www.malaya.com.ph/11092009/news5.html

Freedom of information, in "the prescient judgment of the Framers of the Constitution" and former
Senator and Constitutional Commission member Blas Ople, "establishes a concrete, ethical
principle for the conduct of public affairs in a genuinely open democracy, with the people’s right to
know as the centerpiece," the network said.
The passage of the law is long overdue, according to the network, because "it is a promise to the
Filipino people that the Constitution assured in 1987 yet, or 22 years ago."

Even more important, the network said the passage of the law has clear future benefits: "It is a
reform legislation that assumes greater urgency as we prepare for our first national automated
elections on May 10, 2010."

"Our people need and truly deserve this law. It is as well a demand of the times. It is, in truth, a
vote for good governance, democracy, and the people’s right to know," the network stated,
adding that, "only those less steadfast in the defense of good laws will stand in its way."

Excerpt from Philippine Star: Journalism Students join Freedom of Information march
by Ding Cervantes, December 14, 2009
http://www.philstar.com/ArticlePrinterFriendly.aspx?articleId=532392

Apart from [Malou] Mangahas [convenor of ATIN], the other signatories to the TAN resolution
included Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III of Quezon, Rep. Riza Hontiveros-Baraquel of Akbayan party-list,
Alberto Lim of the Makati Business Club, and other leaders from media, labor, environmental,
academic, law, youth and farmers’ sectors.

Excerpt from Action for Economic Reform article: Bishop calls for FOI Bill ratification.
FOI advocates sends letter to Nograles.

http://www.aer.ph/images/stories/projects/id/nograles-letter-14%20feb%202010-
final.pdf

“The national elections will occupy media in the next several months, and it will be difficult to
compete for space. But we will use creative means, work with local and regional groups, especially
in Davao and Mindanao, to reach Speaker Nograles, members of Congress, and the President”,
said Atty. Nepomuceno Malaluan, spokesperson of the Right to Know. Right Now! Campaign.

The Letter to Speaker Nograles will be sent on Monday, February 15. The letter says that
according to House rules, the consideration of bicameral conference committee reports is always
in order, except when the journal is being read, the roll is being called, or the House is dividing on
any question. FOI advocates ask Speaker Nograles to lead the House in ratifying the FOI Bill
ahead of any other business when it resumes session on May 31, and to immediately transmit it
to the President for enactment into law.

Aside from Bishop Pabillo, the letter to Speaker Nograles is signed by members and supporters of
the Right to Know. Right Now! Campaign composed of public-interest groups, environmental
protection advocates, independent media groups, print and broadcast journalists, farmers
organizations and support groups, women’s organizations, private and public sector labor unions,
migrant workers, businessmen, lawyers, academic institutions, student and youth organizations,
and concerned individuals. Among the individuals who signed are members of the 1986
Constitutional Commission Dr. Florangel Rosario-Braid and Dr. Wilfrido V. Villacorta. Dr. Villacorta
was the author of the provision on the Right to Information in the Bill of Rights of the 1987
Constitution.

Excerpt from Nepomuceno Malalan's article: Right to know right now!

http://www.pcij.org/resources/nepo-malaluan-right-to-know-right-now.pdf
The result of the lack of legislation is the routine violation by government agencies of the people’s
right to information. To cite a few examples:

1. the refusal of access to text of the proposed agreement during the negotiation of the
Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA);
2. the denial of access to the report of retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.
on electoral reform;
3. the initial denial of access to the report of the Independent Commission to Address Media
and Activist Killings;
4. the denial of access to various government loan agreements and government contracts.
5. In its story “Multiple requests for access to info meet with flat denials”, the Philippine
Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) reports that its own writers and editors, even
though patient and diligent in their effort to secure access to documents, have met with
routine denials and flimsy excuses from public officials. Over the last 10 years, the PCIJ
has documented 14 major requests for information vital to its investigative reporting
projects that have been rebuffed by 12 national government agencies. The requested data
and documents included civil works contracts, contractors of government projects, loan
agreements, and the assets and liabilities and net worth (SALNs) of justices of the
Supreme Court, generals of the Armed Forces and political appointees of Malacanang and
other executive agencies. The requests made in writing and followed up by multiple phone
calls to the agencies concerned have been denied for the most incredulous reasons. In the
most difficult cases, the PCIJ had to wait for 56 days

The Need for Immediate Action by the Senate

The lack of legislation on the right to information has grave consequences for the country. The
resulting overall lack of transparency in government has impeded the country’s development. This
relates directly to the persistence of rampant corruption that has weighed down Philippine
economic performance. Free flow of information is a vital safeguard against corruption and rent
seeking. Secrecy in government gives public officials and rent seekers alike a wide room for
maneuver and greater cover for evidence of corruption. In contrast, transparency exposes the
vested interests involved and leads to the identification of corrupt officials.

Lack of transparency has also compromised the quality and effectiveness of government policies.
A free flow of information is needed for better government policies. It will enhance the capacity of
the public to provide timely feedback to government, promote informed debate among
stakeholders, and build consensus around policy objectives and design. The availability of
information on rules and government policies, programs, and resource allocation will enable the
private sector to make sound long-term economic decisions. In critical enterprises such as
electricity and water, public access to relevant information through regulatory agencies will help
guard against undue exercise of market power.
http://www.rcfp.org/ogg/index.php

A. Who can request records?

1. Status of requestor
2. Purpose of request
3. Use of records
B. Whose records are and are not subject to the act?
1. Executive branch
a. Records of the executives themselves
b. Records of certain but not all functions
2. Legislative bodies
3. Courts
4. Nongovernmental bodies
a. Bodies receiving public funds or benefits
b. Bodies whose members include governmental officials.
5. Multi-state or regional bodies
6. Advisory boards and commissions, quasi-governmental entities.
7. Others
C. What records are and are not subject to the act?
1. What kinds of records are covered?
2. What physical form of records are covered?
3. Are certain records available for inspection but not copying?
D. Fee provisions or practices
1. Levels or limitations on fees.
2. Particular fee specifications or provisions.
a. Search
b. Duplication
c. Other
3. Provisions for fee waivers
4. Requirements or prohibitions regarding advance payment
5. Have agencies imposed prohibitive fees to discourage requesters?
E. Who enforces the act?
1. Attorney [Solicitor] General's role
2. Availability of an ombudsman
3. Commission or agency enforcement

F. Are there sanctions for noncompliance?

t

II. Exemptions and other Legal Limitations

A. Exemptions in the open records statute.

1. Character of exemptions
a. General or specific
b. Mandatory or discretionary
2. Discussion of each exemption
III. Law on Electronic Records
A. Can the requester choose a format for receiving records?
B. Can the requester obtain a customized search of computer databases to fit particular needs?
C. Does the existence of information in electronic format affect its openness?
D. How is email treated?
E. Is software public?
F. How are fees for electronic records assessed?
G. Money-making schemes
1. Revenues
2. Geographic Location Systems
H. Online dissemination

IV. Record categories - Open or Closed

A. Autopsy reports
B. Bank Records
C. Business records, financial data, trade secrets.
D. Contracts, proposals, and bids.
E. Collective bargaining records.
F. Coroner's reports
G. Election records
H. Gun permits
I. Hospital permits
J. Personnel records
1. Salary
2. Disciplinary records
2. Police blotter.
3. 911 tapes.
4. Investigatory records.
a. Rules for active investigations
b. Rules for closed investigations
5. Arrest records
6. Compiliations of criminal histories
7. Victims
8. Confessions
9. Confidential informants
10. Police techniques
11. Mug shots
L. Prison, parole, and probation reports
M. Public utility records
N. Real estate appraisals, negotiations.
O. School and university records
1. Athletic records
2. Trustee records
3. Student records
4. Other
P. Vital statistics
1. Birth certificates
2. Marriage and divorce
3. Death certificates
V. Procedure for obtaining records

A. How to start
1. Who receives a request?
2. Does the law cover oral requests?
a. Arrangements to inspect and copy
b. If an oral request is denied:
1. How does the requester memorialize the refusal?
2. Do subsequent steps need to be in writing?
3. Contents of a written request
a. Description of the records
b. Need to address fee issues

c. Plea for quick response.

d. Can the request for future records?

e. Other

B. How long to wait.

1. Statutory, regulatory or court-set time limits for agency response.

2. Informal telephone inquiry as to status.

3. Is delay recognized as a denial for appeal purposes?

4. Any other recourse to encourage a response.

C. Administrative appeal

1. Time limit.

2. To whom is an appeal directed?

a. Individual agencies.

b. A state commission or ombudsman.

c. State attorney general.

3. Fee issues.

4. Content of appeal letter.

a. Description of records or portions of records denied

b. refuting the reasons for denial.

5. Waiting for a response.

 6. Subsequent remedies.

D. Court action.

1. Who may sue?

2. Priority.

3. Pro se.

4. Issues the court will address:

a. Denial

b. Fees for records.

c. Delays.

d. Patterns for future access (Declaratory judgment).

5. Pleading format.

6. Time limit for filing suit.

7. What court.

8. Judicial remedies available

9. Courts and attorneys fees

10. Fines.

11. Other penalties

12. Settlement pros and cons

E. Appealing initial court decisions.
1. Appeal routes.
2. Time Limits for filing appeals.
3. Contact of interested amici.
F. Addressing government suits against disclosure.
http://www.freedominfo.org/features/20051116_coronel.htm

Sheila Coronel, Editor. Access to Information in Southeast Asia. (Phillippine Center for
Investigative Journalism, 2001)

Appendix 1: Availability of Public Records (A Cross-Country Comparison)

CAMBODI INDONESI MALAY PHILIPPIN SINGAPOR

BURMA THAILAND VIETNAM
A A SIA ES E
Macroeconomic
Yes. Some data
data (e.g. GNP,
are considered
GDP, balance of
Sometimes Yes Yes Yes Yes 'senstive' and Yes No
payment,
are not easily
current account
accessed
deficits)
General social
data (e.g.
literacy rate,
poverty rate,
Sometimes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
infant mortality
rate,
employment
rate)
Population
Sometimes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sometimes
census data
Environment
Yes, but
data (e.g. forest
scientific
cover, air/water Rarely No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
quality may
quality, coral
vary
reef destruction)
Copies of laws Sometimes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Somtimes
Copies of Sometimes,
government unless
Yes Yes Sometimes Yes No Yes Sometimes
directives & classified
circulars secret
National
Yes, but only
government
general
budget Sometimes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sometimes
consolidated
(revenues and
data
expenditures)
Local gov't
No Rarely Yes No Yes Yes Yes Somtimes
budgets
No. Only total
No. Only basic amount Yes, except the
Military
No information disclosed. LIne No Rarely No military secret No
expenditures
available items not budget
provided.
No, except
Sometimes,
No, but for some
usually depends
Gov't loans & statistics on international
Sometimes No Sometimes on the discretion Yes Yes
contracts national debt contracts
of the record
are published available via
custodian
int'l agencies
Military loans &
No No No No Rarely No Yes No
contracts
Official audit Do not No No Sometimes, to Yes, once the Yes Yes, for the No, excpet
reports of gov't exist students and audit report has reports already for media
 passed by
parliament;
been declared
agencies researchers Sometimes, for releases
final
those under
audit
Records of
No Yes, except
congressional or
parliament No Sometimes Yes those held in Yes Sometimes Sometimes
parliamentary
here executive session
proceedings
Reports of No, until the case
Sometimes, if No for
official has been
the report is administrative
investigation on No No No resolved; yes, if Yes Sometimes
made public by cases; Yes for
the conduct of the case is filed
the Cabinet criminal cases
gov't officials in court
Police No, unless No, except to
investigation No No Sometimes with a court parties involved Rarely Sometimes No
reports order in the case
Military/police
intelligence No No No No No No Sometimes No
reports
No, for checks
through
financial
institutions;
Credit Yes, for
No No No No No No No
investigations Assignee
Department
(declared
bankrupts
only)
Yes, for civil
cases; for Yes, except for
criminal cases, cases lodged
notes of with Syariah
Court records Rarely No Sometimes Yes Sometimes Sometimes
proceedings court, but only if
are available considered public
only to parties records
involved
Sometimes,
Resume of gov't
Rarely No Sometimes but summaries Yes No No No
officials
only
No. 1998
banking law
Bank records of prohibits
No No No No No To be decided No
gov't officials disclosure of
client
information
No, detailed
accounts not
required by
law, although
Election No limits are set
contributions & elections Sometimes Sometimes on Yes Yes To be decided No
expenditures here expenditures
and a
declaration of
compliance
must be filed
Registration of
other forms of
property of gov't
No No No No Yes No Yes No
officials
(aircraft, yachts,
cars)
Financial
disclosure
reports that
No No No No Yes No To be decided No
show assets and
liabilities of
gov't officials
Corporate
registration Sometimes Yes Sometimes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sometimes
records
Financial
No stock
statements of No stock
exchange Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
publicly listed exchange here
here
companies
Financial
statements of Sometimes,
companies not Sometimes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes but records
listed on the are unreliabl
stock exchange
Sometimes,
Corporate tax
No No No No No No Sometimes but records
records
are unreliabl
Yes for
Business
business
licenses & Sometimes Yes Sometimes Yes Sometimes Yes Yes
licenses; No
permits
for permits
Civil registry
records (e.g. Sometimes,
birth, marriage, No Yes Sometimes only with a No Yes No Yes
divorce, death court order
records)
Gov't service
No Yes Sometimes No Yes No Yes No
records
Military
personnel No No No No Rarely No No No
records
Academic
No Rarely Sometimes No No No Yes Sometimes
records
Land
registration Rarely Yes Sometimes Yes Yes Yes Sometimes Yes
records
Sometimes.
Records are Yes through
Real estate tax
Rarely Yes Sometimes No released only No Sometimes Local Tax
records
with proper Bureau
authorization
Licenses &
No, this is
permits (license Gun ownership
No Sometimes classified Yes No Sometimes No
to own and carry is banned
secret
firearms)
Sometimes, if No, except when
Vehicle
No Yes No party to a legal Yes party is involved No Yes
registration
suit in accidents
Sometimes, if
Driver's license No Yes No party to a legal Yes No No Sometimes
suit
Alien
information (e.g.
date of entry,
manner of No Yes Sometimes No Sometimes No Sometimes No
arrival;
addresses;
occupation; age)
Yes. Published
copy limited to
clients like
political parties
Voter No and elected
Yes. Only lists of No, restricted to
registration elections Yes Sometimes representative Yes Yes
registered voters voter
records here s; voters may
check their
personal
particulars
only
Medical records Rarely No No Sometimes, No, only with NO No Sometimes
 but only with
written permission of
permission patient
from patient
Rarely, only
with
taxpayer's
No, only when
Income tax written
No No No released by No Sometimes No
returns permission or
taxpater
authorization
by Finance
Minister
Industry or
professional
listings/directori
es (e.g. bar Yes Yes Sometimes Yes Sometimes Yes Yes Yes
associations,
chambers of
commerce)
No, still.
Rarely, only
National ID experimental in No national ID No national ID
No No with a court No No
records greater Jakarta system system
order
area
Sometimes, if
Professional
Sometimes Yes Sometimes party to a legal Sometimes Yes Yes Sometimes
licensing record
suit
Civil service
exams and
No Yes Sometimes No Yes No Sometimes No
related
information

Excerpt from Bulatlat: "Access to Information pushed," August 31, 2008

http://www.bulatlat.com/main/2008/08/31/access-to-information-pushed/

Malaluan said, “Even if we have a very clear constitutional guarantee, many have denied our right
to information.”

He cited the high profile case of the National Broadband Network-ZTE deal. The Supreme Court
ruling that Romulo Neri, former NEDA chairman, could invoke executive privilege and that he
could not be compelled to answer three questions during the Senate inquiry on the controversial
project is an example of a denial of the right to access to information, Malaluan said.

Malaluan also said that the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) has been
repeatedly denied access to documents pertaining to official development assistance (ODA)
projects. “The DOF [Department of Finance] continues to deny these even if these clearly involve
tax money.”

Malaluan said, “Non- access can lead to, or be used to hide, corruption.”

He said that there is no speedy, uniform procedure to access information. “Agencies will reply to
you in different ways.”

Excerpt from Manila Bulletin: Senate bill on right to information by Dr. Florangel Rosario
Braid, November 17, 2009
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/229944/senate-bill-right-information
Should Congress fail to pass the Freedom of Information Act by then, years of effort that went
into the crafting of a progressive and responsive FOI Act will again go down the drain as in
previous Congresses.

"Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Majority Leader Jose Miguel Zubiri assured the
network which presented a collective statement of appeal signed by more than 70 organizations
from labor, business, religious, women, youth, religious, academe, etc.,

that the measure has the Senate’s full support. Several international organizations – Southeast
Asian Press Alliance, the FOIA Net, the global listserv for the world’s leading national and
international access to information experts – state that the House and Senate bills constitute a
"ground-breaking piece of legislation."

Toby Mendel, author of several books on freedom of information, noted that "the bills are
progressive pieces of draft legislation that conform to international standards. They contain strong
guarantees of the right of access, have clear and fair rules, provide for internal administrative and
legal appeals, and strong sanctions for those who obstruct the right of access."

"We cannot overemphasize the importance that a Freedom of Information Act will play in the
maturation of Philippine society and politics. FOI is a key component of democracy.

It gives flesh to the Constitutional precepts that sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them, and that public offices must at all time be
accountable to the people.

The right of information is also a necessary condition for the effective exercise of other rights.
Should the Senate fulfill its promise to pass SB 3308 on second reading by November 18, and on
third reading by December 11, it will be a historic and lasting contribution of the 14th Congress to
political reform in the country."

Media: Maguindanao crime justifies Freedom of Info Act

MANILA – Journalists are citing the Maguindanao massacre as a compelling reason for the Senate
to immediately pass the Freedom of Information Act (FOI).

A fact-finding team led by local journalists said the law could have allowed them to scrutinize how
the Arroyo government handled the Maguindanao mass killings.

The call for the measure comes a week after at least 57 were summarily executed in
Maguindanao. Thirty one of them were local media practitioners.

In a report released to the media on Thursday, the Fact Finding Team to Maguindanao, a
group formed by the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists and the National Union of the
Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), rang the alarm bells.They said the authorities have yet to
disclose documents crucial to the probe.

The fact-finding team cited the police reports that contain investigation findings. They said these
should be made available to the public.

Blanket powers

They also questioned the ‘blanket authority’ given to interior and local government secretary
Ronaldo Puno.
Puno’s powers were not detailed in the six-paragraph Presidential Proclamation No. 1946, which
declared Central Mindanao region under a state of emergency, noted Rowena P. Paraan of the
fact-finding team said. President Arroyo placed Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato City
under a state of emergency after the gruesome crime was alleged to have been committed by the
private army of Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan, Jr. President Arroyo and the Ampatuan clan
are political allies.

Among those killed were civilians and family members of Buluan vice mayor Ismael ‘Toto’
Mangudadatu, who will challenge the Ampatuans in the upcoming elections for the gubernatorial
post in Maguindanao.

The fact-finding mission stated in its report that the “blanket authority granted to Puno is not
contained in any presidential issuances on record. It was just discussed in a press release of the
Office of the Press Secretary and in press statement of [press secretary Cerge] Remonde.”

Paraan said the passage of the FOI would help journalists and the public as a whole demand for
the publication of the official document specifying Puno’s thrust.

The team is also seeking access to police case referral reports, which would have summarized the
findings of the investigation, to be made available to the public.

Keep the promise

The FOI bill has been languishing in Congress for the past eight years. Its legislation would help
outline procedural mechanisms for accessing public documents and would also penalize officials
who refuse to release public records. The bill is in the period of interpellations at the Senate. After
this, amendments could be introduced, and the measure would be approved on second and third
readings. Last November 9, members of media and civil society marched to the Senate to lobby
for the passage of the bill. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile vowed that the upper chamber
would pass the measure when Congress resumes sessions next week. ***

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRENGTHEN FOIA

Chiz Escudero ("Senate vows to pass Freedom of Information Act", Philippine Star, November 10,
2009):

“This is a measure that will go a long way in our people’s fight against graft and corruption in high
places and boost transparency in government. Its time has come,” he said.

Escudero asked the Senate to act on a bill requiring all public officials and employees to waive the
exemption of their deposit accounts from the bank secrecy law.

Senate Bill 1476 was one of the first bills he filed during his first year as a senator in 2007.

The waiver will be made in favor of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC) to enable these agencies to compel financial institutions here and abroad to
provide information and documents on financial assets, deposits, investments in bonds and
securities of civil servants.
The Freedom on Information Bill seeks to uphold the right of the people to information on matters
of public concern and the state policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest.

Escudero proposed amendments to the bill to ensure that official records related to loans obtained
or guaranteed by government; government contracts; statements of asset, liabilities, and net
worth of government officials; and those pertaining to official investigations on graft and corrupt
practices of public officers would not be destroyed.

Escudero also seeks the creation of a records management program to allow easy identification,
retrieval and communication of information to the public.

He also proposes that a database in digital and online form be set up for all laws, presidential
issuances, and appointments, and opinions of the secretary of justice.

Open government is the political doctrine which holds that the business of government and
state administration should be opened at all levels to effective public scrutiny and oversight. In its
broadest construction it opposes reason of state and national security considerations, which have
tended to legitimize extensive state secrecy. The origins of open government arguments can be
dated to the time of the European Enlightenment: to debates about the proper construction of a
then nascent civil society. -Wikipedia