Freedom of information refers to a citizen's right to access information that is held by the state.

In many
countries, this freedom is supported as a constitutional right.
Freedom of information was established for transparency, government accountability, education and
general public protection against mismanagement and corruption. More than 70 countries with government
representation approved the original freedom of information legislation.
Related human rights include freedom of expression, data protection (privacy), freedom of association
and right to development.
THE POWER OF ACCESS. The law requiring officials to disclose their assets and financial circumstances has
helped government file cases against 2 presidents and a Supreme Court Chief Justice
MANILA, Philippines - In February 2014, the Philippine government finallyrecovered around $30 million from
multi-million dollar accounts that the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos stashed away in Swiss banks.
What allowed the government to gain control of the money were forfeiture cases which proved that amounts
contained in the accounts exceeded the total legal income of Marcos and his wife Imelda while they were in
office. Evidence used to prove the governments case included the financial disclosure statements filed by the
Marcoses while in office.
It took the government almost 3 decades to recover the money. Neither Marcos, nor his wife Imelda, were ever
convicted of any wrongdoing.
No laggard?
The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the law that required the Marcoses to file those disclosure
statements dates back to the 1960s. In 1989, years after the Marcoses were booted out of office, the Philippine
Congress enacted a new law which allowed the public to access and photocopy the assets and liabilities
statements.
Since then, the law has been used to prove a plunder case against another president (Joseph Estrada),
impeach then remove a chief justice (Renato Corona), file cases against corrupt generals and lately, support
the filing of charges against sitting senators.
That the Philippines enacted such a law almost 3 decades ago is significant because as of 2006, a World Bank
study showed that only 31 of 101 countries that require government officials to declare their income and/or
assets mandate that such declarations or a summary should be made available to the public.
This implies that the Philippines is no laggard when it comes to laws allowing access to public information.
Constitutionally-mandated right
The people's right to information on matters of public concern has been constitutionally recognized in the
country since 1973.
Section 6. 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, shall be
afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
- Bill of Rights, 1973 Constitution
After the 1986 Edsa uprising ousted the Marcos dictatorship, this right was further expanded in the 1987
Constitution to include access to research data used as basis for policy development.
And while there is no enabling law yet on access to information, the Philippine Supreme Court has already
ruled, in more than one occasion, that the constitutional mandate is enforceable.
In fact, the Code of Ethics of government officialsthe same law that mandates public access to financial
disclosure statements of government officialsalso makes it the obligation of public officials and employees to
make documents accessible to the public.
The implementing rules of this law helped institute a system of promotingtransparency of transactions and
access to government information. It also sets limits of access.

More recently, the Aquino administration has been making strides in promoting transparency in government by
proactively disclosing budget and project documents.
It is no small wonder then that while the Senate has approved the bill on 3rd reading, members of the House of
Representatives continue to drag their heels on the freedom of information law.
Because if those laws are already in place, why then is an access to information law still necessary?
To help answer that question, Rappler, with the support of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, analyzed
freedom of information laws in other parts of the world. We noted these common features in the laws we
studied:

an overall policy making information available

limits of access

prescribed process by which information may be accessed, cost of access, and processes for
appealing request refusals

in recent cases measures to ensure that access policies are enforced through oversight bodies and
penalty clauses
Uneven, selective release of information
In the Philippines, while the Code of Ethics does make it the obligation of government offices to make public
documents available, journalists have found time and again that requests may be refused without any clear
grounds.
Selective release is true even for requests for asset disclosure statements despite the clause in the law that
specifically requires custodians to make such documents available for duplication within 10 days after they
have been received.
Three years since the impeachment trial, for example, the House that prosecuted former chief justice Corona
has yet to create rules releasing the disclosure statements of its own members.
In place of SALNs, the House only releases a summary of the wealth of House members in a matrix that
includes the total amount of real properties, personal properties, total assets, liabilities and net worth of each
lawmaker. (READ: Solons from poorest region among richest in Congress).
Rapplers request for the full copies of the SALNs of lawmakers, which we file every year, has been repeatedly
denied.
This is in stark contrast with its co-equal branch, the Senate, which regularly releases the full copies of
statements to media.
The Government Procurement Reform Act also mandates transparency in the procurement processes and
equal access to information for bidders but stops short of requiring access to the actual contracts.
Oftentimes, journalists have to go through insiders to get copies of government contracts.
Short of going to court, which can be expensive and time consuming, there is no clear process for appealing
refusals of requests for information.
Bias for access
Instead of confining access to certain types of information, FOI laws generally make access the default policy.
The website of the UKs Information Commissioners Office expounds on this in instructions to authorities
required to release information:
Remember you (authority) are required to disclose requested information unless there is good reason not to. It
is your responsibility to show why you should be allowed to refuse a request, so it is in your interests to cooperate fully with our investigation.

In rare circumstances when a public authority persistently refuses to co-operate with us, we can issue an
information notice. This is a legally binding notice, requiring an authority to give us the information or reasons
we have asked for.
The UK system simplifies access such that all a person needs to do is to:

contact the relevant authority directly;

make the request (verbal or in writing)

give his real name; and

give an address (postal or email) to which the authority can reply

Instructions on the UK Information Commissioners' website says the requester does not need to mention the
FOI or even know that whether the information is covered by the FOI. He does not even have to explain why
he wants the information.
This is vastly different from current practice in Philippine government offices where those requesting for
information are required to justify why they should be given access.
Limits to access
Those who are lukewarm to the proposed FOI law claim that this could allow sensitive government information
to fall in the hands of bad social elements, "enemies of the state" or even "irresponsible media."
But FOI laws also typically set limits of access or grounds for refusal of requests. Among the countries whose
laws were reviewed by Rappler, grounds for refusal usually include a list of exemptions, which include these
types of information:

security, national defense and public safety

information relating to unfinished/ongoing legal proceedings, investigations

trade and business/commercial interests

international relations / diplomacy

administrative matters such as inter or intra agency memoranda

personal privacy

This does not mean that the public is totally barred from accessing such information. In some cases,
information included in the exemptions list may still be accessed if clear public interest is invoked. This is done
in the appeals process.
The FOI laws of Norway, Sweden and Japan specifically state that exemptions may be lifted if need for access
outweighs reasons for exemptions.
Preserving information
Another important feature of FOI laws in countries Rappler studied are provisions requiring note-taking,
recording and archiving or protecting information.
This is a policy wherein information, especially verbal ones passed on during meetings, are duly noted down
and kept in a journal or register and is properly archived and protected.

In the Philippines, duty to record and from time to time publish congressional proceedings, including how
members of Congress voted, has been constitutionally mandated since as far back as the 1935 Constitution.
The only thing exempted from this mandate were proceedings on matters that may affect national security.
In practice, however, a significant part of congressional budget proceedings, including records on amendments
to the national budget, never make it to publicly available records.
And while the Aquino administration has indeed undertaken efforts to make budget information more
transparent, information that finally came out following the controversy over the Priority Development
Assistance Fund and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) clearly show that much about government
financial transactions are still hidden from the public eye.