Press Release
August 18, 2011

Transcript of press briefing with Senate Minority Leader
Alan Peter S. Cayetano

On the Freedom Of Information Bill

(update from the Committee Hearing)

Kailangan pabilisin na ito. Ang magandang balita naman dito ay ang lahat nagkakasundo na importante ang FoI para na ma-inform ang tao sa kung ano ang nangyayari sa gobyerno at essential ito sa good governance para malabanan ang corruption.

Hindi sapat na malinis lang ang Presidente o ang administrasyon ay gustong maging malinis. Dapat may reporma sa batas at sa mga institusyon natin na magpapatupad nito. Kapag napatupad ito at naipasa ang FOI, wala nang taguan ng mga dokumento, at mas mahirap gumawa ng anomalya.

Q: Sa LEDAC meeting, hindi siya parte ng top bills, ano ang reaksyon ninyo doon?

Of course, I was disappointed, but after the explanation, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, at umaasa ako na mas lalong mapabilis ang pagpapasa nito.

Q: Ayon kay Enrile hindi sigurado na maipapasa ang RP (Responsible Parenthood) Bill. Ano ang reaksyon ninyo dito?

There are people who are for it and there are people who are against it, and the Senate President is against the RH Bill. In the LEDAC, they referred to the Responsible Parenthood bill.

Let's see. What's important is that there'll be full debates and what's important is what's best for the country. Consensus building naman talaga 'yan but since it is a very controversial discussion.

Q: Do you think maipapasa ito?

I can't say. It will depend, really, sa takbo ng debate.

Q: Ano ang pagkakaiba ng 14th Congress sa 15th Congress sa treatment sa FoI Bill?

Ironic. Kasi mabilis na ang pagtakbo ng bill during the last administration, pero ayaw ng Presidente, o ayaw ng administrasyon na 'yon ng FoI. Ayaw ng Arroyo administration ng transparent government. Ngayon naman, medyo bumabagal, pero ang Presidente, committed sa transparency at committed sa good governance.

I think what happened today is a healthy step, at nakausap namin ni Sen. Honasan ang mga secretaries and there will be a lot more meetings soon. They will form an informal technical working group para mapabilis ito.

I think 'yung continued pressure ng ating mga kapatid sa media at ng mga advocacy groups is paying off. I think, at the very least, everyone agrees that this is urgent, essential, and important. Ngayon, ang detalye na lang daw ang pag-uusapan.

Q: For the benefit of the listeners, why is there a need for the FoI?

Mahalaga ang FoI sapagkat ang rason kung bakit ang mga anomalya at graft and corruption ay tuloy-tuloy sa ating bansa ay dahil mahirap ipakulong at mahirap hulihin dahil walang access sa impormasyon. Kontrata lang na pera naman ng bayan, hindi ka makakuha.

Pero kapag may Freedom of Information, kahit sino na sa atin makakakuha ng impormasyon. 'Yung iba, hindi na kailangan mag-apply, sa internet pa lang, makukuha mo na ang dokumento. Kaya sa mga nagbabalak pa lang gumawa ng masama, mag-iingat na kasi alam nilang ang lahat ng dokumento, makikita ng taong-bayan.

Pangalawa, ang lahat ng desisyon ng bansa, hindi mo sasabihin na pulitiko na lang ang magdedesisyon. Kasi, informed na din ang publiko kung paano magdesisyon at ano ang impormasyon na mayroon ang mga decision makers.

Kaya mahalaga ang impormasyon. Kasi madalas natin marinig na ang mga botante naman hindi pa mature. Hindi po totoo 'yon. Kaya lang, ang mga pulitiko, sila lang ang may access sa impormasyon, 'yung mga data para magdesisyon. 'Yung mga tao, wala. Kaya bigyan din natin ang mga tao ng access and let's trust their judgment.

Q: Ano reaction na hindi naisama sa priority bills ang FoI?

Alam namin na in good faith naman ang Palasyo and I'm happy to hear that as a policy, they want it, and transparency and accountability is really central to their platform of government.

However, katulad ng binanggit ko kanina, mas malaki ang damage ng hindi ito pinapasa kaysa maipasa mo kahit kulang pa ang bill. Sa tingin ko, maganda ang mangyayari ngayon, at sa palagay ko mas mapapabilis na ito. Pero kailangan ang continued pressure ng mga NGOs at nga mga kapatid natin sa media.

Q: Sinasabi ninyo na si Pangulong Aquino in favor pa rin sa mga gusto ng ibang kaalyado na nagsasabing hindi na kailangan ng FOI?

Let me put it this way. Kung gusto nila na ang pagiging malinis ng Pangulo ay maging widespread, kailangan nilang ipasa ito. Kung satisfied na sila na maging malinis nang kaunti, eh di tama na ito. But if they want to make sure na kapag umalis ang Pangulo ay malinis ang gobyerno, institutional reform ang kailangan.

(Post-hearing Press Briefing opening remarks)

Unang-una, congratulations sa ating mga kapatid sa media, mga advocacy groups at NGOs dahil sa inyong persistence sa FoI. I think the Palace gets the message that not only is it important and essential, it's also urgent.

I believe it's in good faith that the Palace wants a law that is workable, and a law that will really be good. But I think we also sent the message loud and clear na mas malaki ang damage ng walang FoI BIll kaysa sa isang FoI Bill na imperfect na tingin nila will cause the government damage or slow it down.

The two secretaries also assured Sen. Honasan and myself that we will have more constant contact to formally make a technical working group, informally, para maipasa ito. I think there were more common grounds raised today and I think they communicated very clearly na importante din sa kanila itong Bill na ito.

So I'm hoping that this will be the beginning of the end na of the discussion, and towards the passing of the Bill, rather than just a start of a long and tedious discussions. Ilang dekada nang hinihintay itong batas na ito at naniniwala ako that if we want real institutional reforms, kailangan ito.

Lastly, 'wag tayong mabulag na kahit malinis ang Pangulo at malinis ang administrasyon, hindi ibig sabihin nito na wala nang inefficiency, walang graft, walang corruption sa gobyerno.

Graft is still all around us. Corruption is still all around us. And the best way to fight it is transparency and accountability and make every Filipino citizen, and every resident of the country a graft buster.

To do that, you need the FoI. Kung lahat ng impormasyon ay nasa internet na, 'yung gagawa ng overpricing, 'yung gagawa ng ghost delivery, at iba pa, step one pa lang, nabantayan na. So I'm really hoping that this will speed up the passage of this Bill.

(On the non-inclusion of FOI in LEDAC)

First of all, ang nasabi ng pangulo sa LEDAC is that they are for transparency. At napakarami nang batas that are in place for transparency at ang problema ng FOI ay certain circumstances which they are discussing that could do more damage to the government or to public service rather than good. There were some specific examples discussed. So these are real concerns that have to be addressed. One group is researching on it and another group is discussing it so I agree po sa sinabi ni Chairman Honasan na dapat may time frame and we do it with a technical working group para harapan nating i-discuss.

(Just to clarify some key differences of the Palace and Senate version.)

'Yung iba terminology lang. For example using national security rather than internal and external defense. So personally, what's in a name? So kung magkakasundo naman in changing the terminology and making it broader, I think we'll be open to that.

The major difference that we will have some problems with and will have to address is the 'remedy' part.

'Yung sa version kasi ng Senate before, 'yung administrative case sa department na 'yon and then appealed to the office of the president and then sa ombudsman ka dederetso. At kahit sinong citizen ay pwedeng mag-file ng kaso but ayaw i-release sa kanya 'yung impormasyon.

Under Malacanan's present working draft which they have emphasized that this isn't final, meron silang Information Commission at hindi ka pwedeng mag-file ng kaso nang hindi in-e-endorse or ni-re-recommend ng information commission. And then ang appeal mo sa Supreme Court.

So 'yun 'yung difference na tingin namin, ang remedy o enforcement mechanism can render a bill inutile. Ilan ang batas natin na napakaganda pero hindi naman na-i-implement?

But the reactions that I saw from the two secretaries awhile ago, well-taken 'yung point and that they're willing to review that so siguro ganyan naman talaga sa umpisa pag iba 'yung position.

Medyo naiinip lang po kami na it's taking so much time to get the discussions going but now that it is there, I mean even if Sen. Honasan called the hearing on the first day that he got the committee, kung wala namang i-sa-submit ang Malacanan at kung wala namang silang ipapakitang stand nila, walang mangyayari sa diskusyon namin.

We discussed it on the LEDAC although the discussion was why it wasn't included. The president actually gave directives to the two secretaries to coordinate and mabilis naman na tinugunan ito ng chairman natin.

Q: Is the Palace version watered down?

Let me make a distinction between the right and the remedy.

Sa rights walang watering down. May mga terminologies lang pero guaranteed pa rin 'yung right to information.

Sa remedy, theoretically walang watering down kung mga santo ang nasa information commission. Pero kung hindi malinis ang mga ilalagay sa Information Commission, halimbawa naghahanap ng pabor sa Malacanan, or naghahanap ng future appointment o ng direktiba, maaaring maging stumbling block ito sa enforcement ng karapatan.

So I wouldn't call it watering down but I'd call it a road block or danger zone itong ginawang klase ng remedy.

As I said, that was their initial finding from other countries. At remember in other countries, pag napahiya halimbawa mag-re-resign 'yung opisyal e.

'Yung Australia, the US or Canada, pag na-expose ng media na 'yung Information Commission is hiding information rather than helping, resign kaagad 'yan e.

Pero sa bansa natin uso pa rin ang pakapalan ng mukha so I don't think that the present form of the Information Commission kung saan sila ang may 'say' kung pwedeng ipasa o pwedeng kasuhan o hindi, I don't think it's workable right now.

Fortunately, the two gentlemen secretaries awhile ago expressed their openness to discuss how we can find a remedy to this. In fact they said that some of these points have not been discussed yet so I don't think the Malacanan wants to water it down.

I think in effect minsan parang watered down version ang lumalabas but I don't think 'yun ang intensyon nila. So I hope further discussion especially with the NGO's would be able to help us come up with a better bill but we have to work on it.

(on how access to information will be implemented)

'Yung last congress, ang naging solusyon natin diyan dalawa--number one, the more information you can put on the internet, para wala nang request-request. Number two, may form na tapos 'yung purposes nakalagay.

Parang sa immigration kung saan nakalagay ang purpose of visit. Nakalagay na tourist, business, ganyan. Kung ilalagay mo "for research purposes". That's legitimate.

So check-an mo lang ang research pero kung halimbawa ilalagay mo doon "dahil may i-pe-persecute ako." (Hindi prosecute) May i-pe-persecute ako o may i-ba-black propaganda, 'yun ang bini-bring up kasi ng isang group na paano kung halimbawa may kikidnapin kasi ako so gusto ko malaman magkano pera nila. It might sound absurd but that's what some were discussing or thinking. It can be in the law that the purpose has to be specified but then again it will be in the details already of the discussion.

How do we implement? That's why we want the forms to be part of the law already. Kung hindi, again, there are parts of the law na pag nilagay mo,pwedeng maging inutile. Kasi as you said paano kung sabihin ang justification tapos sabihin sa 'yo ng agency hindi naman ako naniniwala na reporter ka Tingin ko maninira ka lang. Hindi ko ibibigay. Eh di inutile ang batas kung hindi rin ibibigay sa 'yo 'yun.

So two options--one option is to take out that phase, but then mismong sa Supreme Court decisions may nakalagay for legitimate purposes. Or we just specify legitimate purposes, for research purposes, whatever then let them check that.

Q: What do we expect from the Committee on Information... what is the timeline?

I cannot speak for the chair but I know he has clean intentions. I think we can assure you that we will do our best or hindi kami papayag na may provision diyan na magiging inutile ang FOI or magiging batas na pakitang-tao lang na pag inimplement mo na, hindi na magagawa.

That's why even 'yung ID's, etc. kasama sa diskusyon 'yun na before merong proposal na kung anong klaseng ID bago ka makakuha. Paano kung wala kang dalang ID? So things like that. All the details will really be discussed.

Just for reference, by the end of the year ¼ na ng term ng Presidente , by 2013, half of the term na ang President. So both Sen. Honasan and I want this passed before matapos yung half-term ng Presidente so I won't even go to the ¾ of the whole term of the President. But the sooner the better. Remember, the Palace has so much influence over the House of Representatives and sa Senate naman galing siya dito. So informal talks are always very positive.

Actually, if magkakasundo sa versions, we can do this very fast. But we'd like it to be done sometime before the end of next year for a simple reason. The last time we did it na last two minutes, na-technical tayo ng House of Representatives and hindi nila pinasa yung BiCam report. So lahat ng efforts went down the drain.

If we can finish it sometime next year, there will be enough time for both Houses to reconcile their versions with Malacanang. And we can discuss remedies if it turns out not be the kind of bill we want.

Of course, like I said, the sooner the better.

Q: Do you think it would help if we change the name of the bill instead of using the contentious "FOI"?

Right now, it's not a big concern just as long as the substance is there. The reason why I wanted them to specify the identity of the bill is number one, para maging fair sa kanila. So pag kinicriticize natin na bakit mabagal, by them telling na it's essential and important, klaro na yun na hindi nila sinasadyang pabagalin ang proseso.

Number two, para pwede nating singilin. Kasi pag sinabi nila na there are other laws existing and hindi na kailangan ung FOI, they will be reminded that today they made it very clear that we need an enacted FOI law.

Q: Do you think the proposed information commission will simply be a roadblock? It's too early to say. But ang sinasabi ko, with proper amendments, as long as specified yung powers at hindi mawwater-down yung remedies, for me personally as one of the authors I don't object to having an Information Commission. As long as it doesn't water down both the rights and the remedies. In fact it might be helpful to have one agency na walang ginagawa kundi ganoon. Ang objection ko so far is, let me repeat although the two secretaries are willing to look at it again, that hindi mo pwedeng kasuhan yung isang government official pag wala silang recommendation. Yung mismong Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) na rin ang nagsabi na medyo malabo yun.

Q: Who should be part of the Information Commission?

We can argue both ways - na kahit saang ahensiya mo ilagay yan, tao din lang iyan. But there are certain positions, for example the Office of the Ombudsman, theoretically independent yun. But we've seen in the past that pwede namang hawakan ng Palasyo ang taong ito.

If we don't have full faith and confidence in the institution, we should put another remedy other than the current one. Right now, kung ipapasa natin yung version ng Palasyo parang umaasa tayo sa independence at trustworthiness nung ilalagay na commissioner.

Pero paano kung hindi? Paano kung may makapangyarihan din sa gobyerno na hindi matanggihan? That's why I think that it's something that we have to fine tune.

Although I would admit that may benefits na mayroon kang Information Commission.

Q: Information commission will create zero-traffic red tape?

It has its advantages and disadvantages. Ang disadvantage niyan ay pwedeng maging additional layer at pwede rin niyang i-stonewall ang labas ng information.

On the other hand, having an agency dealing solely on information and kung magiging crusader man sila pwede ring mapabilis ito. Ang magiging susi dito ay nasa detalye ng powers at duties nila.

Kung ang mangyayari ay malinaw sa duties nila na ang kanilang trabaho ay ilabas ang impormasyon rather than pigilan ang paglabas o hindi natin iaasa sa kanila ang pag-file ng kaso but the citizens can file the case, it can be an advantage.

But at this present form, I think hindi magiging maganda ang epekto. Ibig sabihin, balakid pa siya rather than tutulong sa Freedom of Information.

Q: Upon the passage of the FOI, can you categorically say that ma-eeliminate na ang mga cases like Garci and Gen. Ligot's?

What I would say is that with the FOI bill passed into law, half the battle is already won.

First of all, deterrent. Lahat ng magbabalak na medyo garapal na dokumento, hindi na matutuloy kasi madali mong makukuha yung dokumento. Number two, lahat nung sa tingin nila ay di sila mahuhuli, mas madaling huliin kasi you can get the information right away.

Number three, lahat nung nagbabalak na may ipapalusot, just like the compromised agreement with Gen. Garcia, we can assure them that hindi mapapalusot ito. We can assure them na malalaman kasi madali na yung access sa information na yon.

News Latest News Feed