Analysis by Raïssa Robles
In the wake of President Benigno Aquino’s State of the Nation Address (SONA), various groups have made their voices heard about what they want from the president in his last two years in office. They’re all united in one thing: They want the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) passed.
Big business wants it, the moderate Left wants it. So does the extreme Left.
Maybe the only group that doesn’t want it is that composed of lawmakers and government officials who have a lot to hide from the public.
The biggest 18 local and foreign business groups in the country led by the Makati Business Club (MBC) , the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) and the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) recently voiced their support of the passage of an FOI law in a letter they sent to the President.
I noticed that even the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry signed the open letter to Aquino spelling out big business’ legislative and governance wish list. The FOI tops their wish list, along with the passage of the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act.
There, however, the unity of purpose ends across the spectrum.
While the nation’s top businessmen have asked PNoy not to tinker with the current Philippine Mining Act and the Electric Power Industry Reform Act or EPIRA – the law which governs the power sector – the moderate and extreme left in our society want the President to do the exact opposite –
- Amend the mining law to favor government, small miners and affected communities and
- Repeal Epira and replace it with a law that would protect consumers better and lower electricity rates
The moderate left is represented by Akbayan Party and the extreme left by Bayan Muna and its sister parties such as Gabriela, Anak Bayan, Anakpawis and ACT Teachers.
The extreme left would like a more radical solution to the lack of power and high prices. It wants to nationalize the power sector and institute the following measures:
1. Prohibit the government from selling what is left of the government’s energy assets and infuse capital to rehabilitate and increase the capacity of these plants;
2. Order the Department of Energy (DOE) to use the P175 billion Malamapaya funds to construct power plants especially those that utilize renewable energy which should come into operation within 3 years from the passage of the law;
3. Abolish the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) and order the distribution utilities should gradually contract 100 % of their requirements;
4. Buy back the power plants sold to the private sector under EPIRA;
5. Reform the electric cooperatives, eradicate corruption and inefficiency while increasing public participation in the distribution utilities’ (DU’s) decision making body;
6. Scrap the policy of deregulation and eliminate the automatic pass through provisions of generation, transmission and other charges;
7. Institute the policy of regulation of all charges, requiring public notification and hearing before any power rate increase.
Both Akbayan and Bayan Muna have been at loggerheads for decades. A year ago, however, the two set aside their differences and went to the Supreme Court to ask it to reverse its ruling declaring the 1995 Mining Law constitutional by asking it to declare Sections 80 and 81 of this law unconstitutional.
Hmmm. Bayan Muna did that? And I thought that just recently it lambasted PNoy for questioning The Supreme Court’s ruling declaring parts of his Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional. Wonders never cease.
In any case, I see the open letter of big business as a subtle endorsement of Aquino in the face of his sagging popularity over his insistence on the constitutionality of DAP; and in the face of current attempts to impeach him or unseat him in extra-constitutional ways.
The letter begins by saying:
Your Excellency:
The Philippine Business Groups and the Joint Foreign Chambers (PBG-JFC) recognize the vigorous efforts of your administration to introduce lasting social, political, and economic reforms that will pave the way for a progressive Philippines. We reiterate our common position that we stand with your administration in institutionalizing these much-needed and long-overdue reforms.
But it’s not all praises. The letter goes on to say [underlining theirs]:
It is imperative that public officials, both past and present, who are proven to have been involved in the misuse of public funds be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law at the soonest time and without fear or favor.
Despite your administration’s best efforts to safeguard the allocation and use of public funds, recent developments demonstrate that corruption still rears its ugly head in the hidden nooks and crannies of the bureaucracy and government transactions. We believe that this greatly highlights the need and value of an engaged citizenry serving as government’s partner in guarding against corruption. Thus, we take note of your commitment during the Daylight Dialogues to pass the Freedom of Information Act before the end of your termand are looking forward to its enactment.
One thing that struck me about this letter is the information that the businessmen shared about smuggling:
In a forum with business organizations, the Customs Commissioner stated that the value of smuggled merchandise in 2011 alone was estimated to be between P350 billion to P1.4 trillion. This hole must be plugged.
Jeez. If the value of smuggled goods in 2011 was estimated to be up to P1.4 trillion, that amount is more than half of the P2.6 trillion budget for next year 2015. That sizable amount of smuggled goods is tantamount to economic sabotage!
Can these big business groups honestly say that all their members do not engage in technical or outright smuggling?
While they say that:
we would like to encourage other government agencies to insist that companies wishing to bid for government contracts should sign the Integrity Pledge and submit themselves to doing clean and ethical business.
Can all these groups and their members also please sign Integrity Pledges with the Bureau of Customs? Recall that some months ago, the Bureau of Customs suspended several brokers and importers for misdeclaring goods. I recall that at least one name stuck out of that list because, well, it happens to be one of the blue chip corporations. Whose owners are active members of big business groups.
Another thing that big business can do to help combat corruption and at the same time increase tax take is to stop the practice of padding corporate expenses by charging their personal gas and entertainment expenses as well as those of their families. It’s the same practice that they frown at when a government official does it.
They might say that they’re not in government, they’re not using tax money and they are merely practicing tax avoidance. They’re technically correct. But it smacks of tax evasion because every centavo of personal and family expenses that they pad on to their corporate expenses means further deductions to the corporate taxes they have to pay.
Of course the tax bureau would probably not be able to go after them since they hire the best accountants in Asia. But this boils down to a matter of trust.
You see, big business trusts the government to deliver on the promise of inclusive growth. In turn, the government trusts businessmen to pay the correct amount of taxes, with a promise that these taxes will be redistributed for the benefit of the lower income sectors of society.
Two other things I’ve noticed about big business. Its groups talk a lot about CSR (Corporate Social Responsiblity) and praise each other about their CSRs. I’ve received mountains of press releases about their CSR and been asked to cover luncheons extolling CSRs.
I’ve always wondered why I can’t seem to find statistics that would show me how much of earnings before income taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) really go to CSR. What’s the percentage for each company and for the top 1000 corporations at least?
Or is CSR just for advertising purposes?
Finally, it’s interesting to note what is not in the legislative wish list of big business. The following are not on their wish list but are on the wish list of prominent former NEDA director General Cielito Habito:
- A competition law that would reduce unfair trade practices, regulate the growth of monopolies and over-concentration of businesses in the hands of a few
- A national land use act that would regulate the use of an increasingly scarce resource – land – for the benefit of the majority and future generations
In short, while big business is asking government to shape up, maybe it’s high time that big business also steps up and do its share in not contributing to the corruption, promoting equity and inclusive growth.
For instance, big business should see workers, not as operating costs, but as part of its present and future markets that needs to be cultivated and expanded.
The change in perception might do wonders for the economy and for their companies. I recall what columnist Wilson Lee-Flores recently told me about the late Jose Yao Campos. His company Unilab was never beset by strikes and he treated his workers really, really well. He gave them more than what the law provided and they worked well in return. Today, Unilab is growing shoulder-to-shoulder with foreign pharmaceutical firms.
Big business has a big part in charting the country’s future. But every Philippine President is forced to weigh what businessmen want against what other equally important sectors want.
Against this backdrop of competing wishes, please read below the letter of big business to PNoy [all underlining is theirs], furnished to media :
21 July 2014
His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III
President of the Republic of the Philippines
Manila, Philippines
Your Excellency:
The Philippine Business Groups and the Joint Foreign Chambers (PBG-JFC) recognize the vigorous efforts of your administration to introduce lasting social, political, and economic reforms that will pave the way for a progressive Philippines. We reiterate our common position that we stand with your administration in institutionalizing these much-needed and long-overdue reforms.
In 2013, the PBG-JFC conducted a series of dialogues to craft a list of key issues and proposed measures which we strongly believe will help achieve our shared vision of inclusive growth through job generation, poverty reduction, and global competitiveness. The product of these consultations was a letter that we sent to your office and was subsequently acknowledged by the Economic Development Cluster of your Cabinet.
Entering the latter half of your term, the PBG-JFC would like to take this opportunity to revisit some of our recommendations. With the Philippines hosting various international fora in the next three years, there is a golden opportunity for the country to cement its reform agenda and showcase its success story to the global community, as was done recently during the World Economic Forum on East Asia.
Institutionalizing Integrity and Good Governance
The PBG-JFC is cognizant that your administration’s drive to stamp out corruption has indeed borne fruit and contributed to the country’s better-than-expected economic performance and competitiveness rankings. We must continue to push the campaign for good governance. It is imperative that public officials, both past and present, who are proven to have been involved in the misuse of public funds be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law at the soonest time and without fear or favor.
Despite your administration’s best efforts to safeguard the allocation and use of public funds, recent developments demonstrate that corruption still rears its ugly head in the hidden nooks and crannies of the bureaucracy and government transactions. We believe that this greatly highlights the need and value of an engaged citizenry serving as government’s partner in guarding against corruption. Thus, we take note of your commitment during the Daylight Dialogues to pass the Freedom of Information Act before the end of your termand are looking forward to its enactment.
Connected to this, we also welcome your pronouncement during the same Dialogue regarding the issuance of an Executive Order seeking to institutionalize a mechanism for public-private cooperation in instilling integrity in governance. On this note, as what was done by the Department of Public Works and Highways, we would like to encourage other government agencies to insist that companies wishing to bid for government contracts should sign the Integrity Pledge and submit themselves to doing clean and ethical business. Finally, we encourage the Executive to closely coordinate with the Judiciary and the Legislative branch to address issues of competence, efficiency, and integrity in the justice system.
Achieving Inclusive Growth
While the economy has rapidly expanded during your term—bringing the Philippines into the ranks of Asia’s best economic performers—we note that a commensurate impact on reducing unemployment and underemployment has yet to be felt by our people. We believe that greater focus on sustainable agriculture and responsible mining will substantially assist in our shared aim of inclusive growth.
Despite our stellar economic growth, we note that the agriculture sector continues to underperform. Given that this sector employs close to a third of our population, particularly in the provinces, we urge your administration to immediately formulate and implement roadmaps for specific subsectors in agriculture, similar to what has been done for certain industries by the Department of Trade and Industry. Furthermore, these roadmaps must be supported by adequate investments to increase agricultural productivity and to improve the welfare of our farmers and fisherfolk.
We also reiterate our position that responsible mining holds the potential not only to bring in more foreign investments, but also to increase incomes in rural communities as well. Therefore, we call for the retention of the existing Philippine Mining Act, as we hold that this is an effective piece of legislation if properly implemented. As a complement, we should ensure that we have an internationally competitive fiscal regime for mining, which gives the government a fair share of net mining revenues, as well as ensures an equitable and reasonable return for investors. Furthermore, in deciding on the mapping of “no-go” zones, we reemphasize our position that the value of potential mineral projects should be balanced and weighed against agricultural, tourism, and other considerations.
Accelerating Infrastructure Development
Since 2010, we have seen the Public-Private Partnership initiative steadily gain steam, with close to 50 projects in the pipeline for implementation. We fully support government’s efforts to raise infrastructure spending to 5% of GDP by 2016. Nevertheless, the infrastructure gap continues to remain wide and must be bridged as soon as possible to support the economy.
First, we reiterate our position for a multi-airport system, particularly NAIA, Clark, and a future third airport, to serve the country’s current and prospective aviation requirements. On this note, we strongly believe that we should continue to enhance the advantages given by an international gateway in close proximity to the National Capital Region, while complementing this with further improvements in the capacity of Clark International Airport.
We also ask the government to expedite the construction of the NLEX-SLEX Connector, as well as to construct a feeder road that will connect it to the Port of Manila, which we believe will facilitate the movement of goods to and from production sites and our major ports. On a related matter, we once again emphasize our call to shift cargo traffic from the Port of Manila to the Ports of Subic and Batangas and support these with parallel initiatives to stimulate economic activities in these areas, and to reduce the cost of logistics.
Ensuring Energy Security and Price Competitiveness
The business community is united in the belief that opening up the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) to amendments will result in an unstable regulatory framework and thus may cause the deferment or cancellation of pending and much-needed investments in the power sector. It is our common position that what is needed is the full and proper implementation of EPIRA.
Also, we call on the government to ensure that growth targets will be supported by the needed energy investments. As such, a roadmaptowards energy security and electricity price competitiveness, which takes into account all the elements of the energy sector from generation to distribution, must be formulated at the soonest time and likewise made available to the public. Furthermore, moving forward, we call on the government to augment the Department of Energy and Energy Regulatory Commission with capable, proactive, and visionary staff, shifting the pertinent agencies away from a reactionary stance regarding energy issues.
Increasing Foreign Investments
We recognize that the amount of Foreign Direct Investments entering the Philippines has been steadily increasing under your administration. However, relative to our neighbors in Southeast Asia, and taking into account our need for as much job-generating investments as possible, the Philippines continues to lag behind comparable regional economies.
In this light, we strongly encourage the government to consider proposals to open certain areas of the economy to greater foreign participation. Today is an opportune time to pursue economic liberalization as a multitude of positive factors are converging towards making the country a preferred investment destination, among which include a young and dynamic citizenry, a robust economy, and great interest from the overseas investing community to participate in the Philippine market.
Pending any amendments to the Constitution, we suggest an initial and immediate course of action: to revise the Foreign Investment Negative List by reducing the list of industries where foreign participation is limited. Relevant legislation should be introduced in the near future for this purpose.
Addressing Smuggling
In a forum with business organizations, the Customs Commissioner stated that the value of smuggled merchandise in 2011 alone was estimated to be between P350 billion to P1.4 trillion. This hole must be plugged.
We are aware that the proposed Customs Modernization and Tariff Act and various measures on Anti-Smuggling are moving in both chambers of Congress. It is our fervent hope that, consistent with our goal to eliminate illicit trade and our commitment to the Revised Kyoto Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures, these necessary measures be immediately enacted and enforced.
Moreover, we reiterate our proposal to have high-level representatives from government to continuously engage with the private sector in a joint effort to address smuggling, similar to a Cabinet-level Oversight Committee with private sector participation as was done in previous administrations.
Mr. President, through these measures, the PBG-JFC is firmly convinced that the Philippines will continue to be among Asia’s trailblazers and, at the same time, ensure that the gains from good governance and a flourishing economy will benefit the majority of our people with the greatest of needs.
In relation to this and most significantly, the business community reiterates the appeal aired by some of our leaders in the Daylight Dialogues that the Supreme Court ruling on certain actions under the Disbursement Acceleration Program must not be allowed to weaken the determination of your administration to aggressively pursue its key reform programs in the next two years.
We thank you for this opportunity to be heard, and we look forward to working with your government towards these common goals.
Yours sincerely,
(SIGNED)
RAMON R. DEL ROSARIO JR.
Chairman
Makati Business Club
(SIGNED)
DAN C. LACHICA
President
Semiconductor and Electronics Industries in the Philippines, Inc.
(SIGNED)
EDGARDO G. LACSON
President
Employers Confederation of the Philippines
(SIGNED)
JOSE MARI P. MERCADO
President & CEO
IT and Business Process Association of the Philippines
(SIGNED)
GREGORIO S. NAVARRO
President
Management Association of the Philippines
(SIGNED)
ERNESTO M. ORDOÑEZ
President
Alyansa Agrikultura
(SIGNED)
SERGIO ORTIZ-LUIS JR.
President
Philippine Exporters Confederation
(SIGNED)
BENJAMIN PHILIP G. ROMUALDEZ
President
Chamber of Mines of the Philippines
(SIGNED)
ALFONSO G. SIY
President
Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Inc.
(SIGNED)
EDMUNDO S. SORIANO
President
Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines
(SIGNED)
ALFREDO M. YAO
President
Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry
(SIGNED)
RHICKE JENNINGS
President
American Chamber of Commerce
(SIGNED)
IAN PORTER
President
Australian-New Zealand Chamber of Commerce
(SIGNED)
JULIAN PAYNE
President
Canadian Chamber of Commerce
(SIGNED)
MICHAEL RAEUBER
President
European Chamber of Commerce
(SIGNED)
TETSUO TOMINO
President
Japanese Chamber
(SIGNED)
EUN GAP CHANG
President
Korean Chamber of Commerce
(SIGNED)
SHAMEEM QURASHI
President
Philippine Association of Multinational Companies Regional Headquarters, Inc.
CC:
Executive Secretary Paquino N. Ochoa Jr.
Cabinet Secretary Jose Rene D. Almendras
Sec. Cesar V. Purisima, Department of Finance
Sec. Florencio B. Abad, Department of Budget and Management
Sec. Julia R. Abad, Presidential Management Staff
raissa says
FYI, an article I posted three years ago on Rigoberto Tiglao, key aide of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, has been getting a lot of renewed interest today.
It is entitled – Riboberto Tiglao: Super Fraud
http://raissarobles.com/2011/08/25/rigoberto-tiglao-super-fraud/
In this piece, I talked about how Bobi Tiglao justified Arroyo’s cheating of Fernando Poe Jr. in the 2004 elections.
Bobi said Fernando Poe was engaged together with Erap Estrada in a “conspiracy to cheat democracy.”
Bobi’s words have come back to bite him, especially now that Fernando Poe’s daughter is very popular.
vernon says
Tiglao has really turned out to be a disappointment. It won’t really be a surprise if he’s working as a political operator of some kind for somebody. Guess it’s all about the money.
Well done, Raissa. As always.
vernon
greenpea says
@vernon,
to borrow Rizal’s words about slaves of yesterday being tyrants of tomorrow, “ang nag-aktibista ngayon, mang-aapi bukas”
Rene-Ipil says
Beware of Cobbie Tuklao. He is so venomous.
parengtony says
The political agenda of Malacanang’s chosen few is the root of PNoy’s less than aggressive stance on the FOI bill.
Lorena says
This should be a priority bill and not wait for PNoy’s term to end. Pass the bill SOONEST. No more doctoring of documents. Pass your paper.
Vhin AB says
Sana makakita tayo ng mga leaders na uunahin talaga ang kapakanan ng taumbayan. Marami pa rin ang nagmamalasakit kaso hindi nabibigyan ng pagkakataon. We’re all hoping na mabago ang sistema. Slow and painful process pero basta naiaayos.
tristanism says
Not to say that we do away with the FOI bill but Republic Act No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards For Public Officials and Employees) Section 5(a) does have a provision similar to FOI. Baka naman kasi kulang din sa paghahanap kaya minsan hindi makita. Or baka naman naghahanap lang talaga ng masabi.
Here’s a link that discusses that: http://titokoto.weebly.com/
tristanism says
sorry, it should have been this link: http://titokoto.weebly.com/i-thought-about-it/fui-on-foi
Edgar Lores says
One way to test the FOI bill(s) is to do an imaginary trial run, a scenario. One important piece of info that we the people would want is to establish whether the Vice President (VP) has been on the up and up. A specific FOI request to do this might be stated overall as: Were the PDAF allocations to the VP from 2010 to 2013 spent for the public good?
To know this, we might break down the request by year: What were the projects that the VP sponsored for each year?
Let us take the year 2010. How do we get the list of projects? Specifically, where do we get the list? There are two possibilities:
1. The office of the VP
2. COA
Between the two, the more logical answer would be the first. Why? Because the data in COA may not be indexed by sponsoring politician and by year. COA would have the SAROs, but if each relevant SARO is only identifiable by project and neither by sponsor nor by year, we are in trouble. This is assuming that the data are in a computer. If they are in different file folders in different file cabinets, with a separate cabinet for each agency, we are in deeper trouble.
So let us assume we go to the office of the VP. Again, the project list for 2010, assuming there is one, may be in a computer or in a folder in a cabinet.
First question: will we be granted access to the data? The VP may cite any one of the reasons for not allowing access, such as national security, and where would that leave us?
Assuming the VP grants permission, he might wait until the end of the response period, come back and say, “Sorry, the data is in archive. We can get it but you’ll have to pay a Search Fee of P1,000.” Fine, you say, go ahead, here’s a Jose, Vicente and Josefa (JVJ).
Again, the VP might bide his time until the end of the next response period, come back and say, “Sorry, only Nancy knows where to look in the archive. Her parachute dress was quite expensive, despite its cut, and so we would ask for another JVJ but her current monthly salary as an OJT senator is P5M, so her hourly rate is only P62,500. It will take her 2 hours to find the list.” Fine, you say, go ahead, and write a check for P125,000.
At the end of the period – surprise, surprise – you do get the list. There are 20 projects on the list, but 15 of them are redacted due to, you know it, national security. That is, to secure the nation in 2016.
Undeterred, you, the never-say-die fighting Filipino that you are, take the list to COA and request for the SARO’s and details of the 5 legible projects. COA looks at the list and says, “Sorry, sir, this will take some time. The list just contains project titles and no project numbers.” Fine, you say, go ahead and surrender another JVJ.
At the end of the period – surprise, surprise – you do get the SARO numbers, the project numbers and the project descriptions. Unfortunately, the supporting documents for each project – the project plan, the standards, the contracts, the subcontracts, the invoices, the progress and inspection reports, etc – are with the DPWH branch offices and one NGO. One branch is in Ilocos, another in Sorsogon, two in Cebu, and the last one, the NGO, is in Zamboanga. You will have to go to each branch office to look at and verify the documents, assuming the field offices still keep them, and, while there, you surely would want to visually inspect the projects. You plan to take a trip every six months, and decide to go to far Zamboanga first because you haven’t been there. You fly there and visit the address of the NGO… only to find the doors locked. Alas, they have just closed recently because there’s no more PDAF. …And, to make a long story short, before you know it, we are into 2016.
Good luck!
Joe America says
Troublemaker. :)
Edgar Lores says
Ahahaha!
Kalahari says
Bad news:
Pnoy might have omitted the FOI bill in his Sona but he included it (#18) in the 26 “priority measures” he wants congress to pass before his term ends in mid-2016. (PDI today)
According to Raissa, “big business wants it, the moderate Left wants it. So does the extreme left.” Raissa did not include the members of the 4th Estate (media) who want it badly too.
Raissa hit the nail on the head (maybe on the coffin with the FOI inside) when she said “Maybe the only group that doesn’t want it is that composed of lawmakers and government officials who have a lot to hide from the public.” (Not abad and the SC)
Many are afraid that it would take congress years before they table/discuss the #18, long after PNoy’s time.
chit navarro says
This is not related to FOI but it still speaks of transparency and accountability and the GAB is uploaded in the DBM website. (no need to have FOI to be able to check what the budget is for.)
The process of how the General Appropriations Act come into being as a law: (from the Deputy Sec. Gen of the House of Representatives:
**********************************************************
“The NEP (National Expenditure Program) is the proposed annual budget submitted by the Executive to the House of Representatives which becomes the basis for the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) that is referred as House Bill No. ___.
Once filed, the NEP is referred to the Committee on Appropriations where it is heard and once approved is reported to the plenary for second reading. The House in plenary deliberates and proposes amendments
After the period of amendments, the GAB is submitted for third reading and transmitted to the Senate where it undergoes first, second and third reading. In practice, the Senate Finance Committee hears and deliberates in advance of receipt of the GAB to save time. In case of disagreeing provisions, a bicameral committee is created to reconcile conflicting provisions. The Bicameral Committee Report is submitted to both houses and once approved by plenary is enrolled and signed by the Speaker and the Senate President. The enrolled bill once signed is transmitted to the president for his signature. Once signed it becomes a law and it is called the General Appropriations Act or the GAA.
And politics aside, one of the achievements of Congress and P’Noy that I am sure the business community has taken notice of is the fact that for four years since he assumed the presidency, the GAA has all been passed and approved on time. Credits to the House Leaders led by Speaker Sonny Belmonte and Majority Leader Boyet Gonzales, Appropriations Committee Members and Chair Sid Ungab, former Chairs, Sec Jun Abaya and Josy Limkaichong, the Senate Leadership led by Senate President Franklin Drilon, former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Senate Finance Committe Chair Chiz Escudero, and last but not the least, Sec Butch Abad and the cabinet economic cluster.
Whereas during the time of GMA, there were more years that the budget was not passed and so the budget of the previous year is the one adopted.
Rene-Ipil says
And upon adoption of previous year’s budget all appropriations, wherein the projects or activities have been completed, are automatically converted into savings for the use of the president during the succeeding year. This easily circumvents the ruling of the SC on DAP where savings from current appropriations could only be generated at the end of the fiscal year.
When the previous year’s budget had been re-enacted, all appropriations for completed projects became savings under DAP. Very constitutional. See paragraph 15 and 16, page 9 of the MR.
baycas says
I believe PNoy is worried about the “misuse” of FOI…as reported before.
UK shares some of the pros and cons (including inane requests!) of the Act…
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/freedom-of-information-requests–the-good–the-bad-and-the-downright-silly.html
@raissa,
Is there an available report here showing the ‘bad’ side of the Act, if ever passed?
Though the Right, Center, and Left have one voice (of course, according to their agenda), the ‘Underground’ too may want the Act to be passed for their sinister plans.
baycas says
PNoy mentioned a “working group” here:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/68015/aquino-on-freedom-of-information-bill-it-might-be-misused
It’s possible that group had findings already for everyone to be informed…
baycas says
FYI,
http://www.gov.ph/about/gov/exec/office-of-the-president/philippine-transparency-seal/
How about an Opacity Seal?
baycas says
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/?page_id=4273
Rene-Ipil says
An action for mandamus is available in case of denial of requested information. But there is nothing in the senate approved FOI Act that provides remedy when the Supreme Court justices unreasonably deny access to their SALNs.
I believe impeachment is the only remedy available to address the people’s right to information involving the SC justices. On this score the FOI Act must be passed into law to help Kim Henares fulfill her mandate. Or such remedy must be incorporated in any FOI law.
Joe America says
Comment to moderation.
Joe America says
Rampant smuggling as “economic sabotage.” Yes, you take that along with all the kickbacks on projects, that both undermine the financial integrity of the project leading to poor work to compensate for the cost of the kickbacks, and that it often selects the worst contractor for the job, and you see why the Philippines has been economically stagnant since WWII. It has little to do with what the US did or didn’t do. These kickbacks are continuing today. They are disguised as permit fees and other nonsense. They are obscene and there is no active hunt to track down the millions and millions of pesos of leakage. If there were, I could surely point the investigators toward one project to examine. I’m sure there are hundreds going down today, directly in the face of the anti-corruption fight. As a reader on my blog pointed out, Mr. Aquino is steering an unsteerable ship.
Information will help shine the spotlight on these nefarious deeds. It should include the provinces, cities and municipalities, not just the national agencies.
Cha says
PNoy asks Congress to prioritize FOI
ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 07/30/2014 6:15 PM | Updated as of 07/30/2014 6:15 PM
MANILA – President Benigno Aquino III has asked lawmakers to prioritize the passage of 20 bills, including the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill that he failed to include in his State of the Nation Address (SONA).
Based on documents from the Presidential Legislative Liaison’s Office, another priority measure is the extension of the period by which to issue notices of coverage for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) lands.
Another priority measure is the proposed P2.606 trillion General Appropriations Act for 2015.
The others are:
– Bangsamoro Basic Law;
– Tax Incentives Management and Transparency Act and the Fiscal Incentives Rationalization;
– amendments to the Build-Operate-Transfer law;
– amendments to provisions on right of way;
– amendments to the Cabotage Law;
– Uniformed Personnel Pension Reform bill which will amend Presidential Decree 1638 to “ensure that military pensions are timely, and balanced against national needs;”
– amendments to the Charter of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas;
– rationalization of the mining fiscal regime;
– Competition Law;
– an act providing protection, security and benefits to whistleblowers;
– Philippine Maritime Zones Act or the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act;
– the Land Administration Reform Bill which will ensure convergence among agencies tasked to oversee land holdings;
– National Land Use Act;
– delineation of specific forest limits of the public domain;
– Water Sector Reform Act;
– an act protecting the rights of internally displaced persons;
– amended Magna Carta for the Poor.
“It is hoped that these measures will improve the quality of governance, boost the market’s essential institutional infrastructure, and support an economy that guarantees full, equal, and universal enjoyment of all human rights,” said Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr.
Aquino has yet to convene the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC).
The law provides that the LEDAC should meet every quarter of every year.
Under Aquino’s term, the LEDAC was only convened in February 2011, August 2011, and February 2012.
netty says
FOI is not necessarily needed for good governance, as long as DEMOCRACY is properly functioning well in the PH, it’s good. The policy of openness and transparency should be improved, records shouldn’t be destroyed and the judicial system should be working just and fair.
Here’s what is FOI AND PRIVACY ACT IN Canada:
In my experience, under the Privacy Act, I can’t check my own utility bills and money investments or any document that is not under my name but for some reason are listed under my husband or my children. I need their authorization to release the information, if can’t be done by phone or letter ,I need to drag them with me to the business institution. i hope this helps in better understanding of FOI that for me it is a great tool but not absolute.
Canada
Main article: Freedom of information in Canada
In Canada, the Access to Information Act allows citizens to demand records from federal bodies. The act came into force in 1983, under the Pierre Trudeau government, permitting Canadians to retrieve information from government files, establishing what information could be accessed, mandating timelines for response.[18] This is enforced by the Information Commissioner of Canada.
There is also a complementary Privacy Act that was introduced in 1983. The purpose of the Privacy Act is to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by a federal government institution and that provide individuals with a right of access to that information. It is a Crown copyright. Complaints for possible violations of the Act may be reported to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Canadian access to information laws distinguish between access to records generally and access to records that contain personal information about the person making the request. Subject to exceptions, individuals have a right of access to records that contain their own personal information under the Privacy Act but the general public does not have a right of access to records that contain personal information about others under the Access to Information Act. Each province and territory in Canada has its own access to information legislation. In many cases, this is also the provincial public sector privacy legislation. For example:
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Alberta)
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Manitoba)
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Nova Scotia)
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario)
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Saskatchewan)
Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information (Quebec)
From 1989 to 2008, requests made to the federal government were catalogued in the Coordination of Access to Information Requests System.
A 393 page report released in September 2008, sponsored by several Canadian newspaper groups, compares Canada’s Access to Information Act to the FOI laws of the provinces and of 68 other nations.[19]
In 2009, The Walrus (magazine) published a detailed history of FOI in Canada.[20]
raissa says
you have link to 393-page report?
thanks
netty says
Raissa, this is what I found. It’s long pages and so much reading. Hope this is the one you’re looking for and hoping the link is good, too. Well done.
(393 page report released in September 2008)
http://www3.telus.net/index100/report
or
http://www3.telus.net/index100/report.pdf
Fallen Behind:
Canada’s Access to Information Act
in the World Context
by
Stanley L. Tromp
raissa says
Thanks, netty.
netty says
@ Raissa, the link I sent is awaiting moderation. I hope you catch it and it is the one.
yvonne says
It is interesting to know that divergent groups, some of which have opposing goals and ideals, seem to be in general agreement that it is hightime Congress should pass a FOI legislation.
I wonder though what these groups – or for that matter, what the Filipino people in general, are looking for and what their expectations are in a FOI law. Expectations and realities are certainly two different things because although Congress could pass a FOI, it could pass a watered-down version.
I have read at least two proposed FOI bills: One is S. No. 1733 introduced by Escudero, Trillanes, Osmena, Honasan, Guingona, Cayetano, Legarda, Angara, Revilla, and Poe, as authors. The other is House Bill 3237 introduced by Robredo and Abad. Does any of these bills represent the general sentiment of the Filipino people? Or, do we have something else in mind when we talk about a FOI law? What do we want to be included, or excluded, in a FOI law?
I have once attempted to request information under the U.S. FOI law for some tax information on a U.S. -based charitable foundation run by a Filipino politician. Being tax-exempt, the tax information of that charitable foundation is open for public scrutiny. It is interesting to note that in the U.S. there is a sort of a central clearing house that handles request for information under the FOI. I also learned that you have to pay a good amount of money for the handling and processing of a request. (This could certainly discourage other people from making a request, so I thought that the fees should be subsidized.) But the most suprising of all is that the person involved in the requested information must give permission for the information to be released. I must admit though that I was requesting for an information on what may be considered a private entity (the charitable foundation), as opposed to a government entity, so the latter may not require securing such permission.
Based on the information I have had, the U.S. FOI is more encompassing as it covers both private individual and govenment entities, whereas our proposed FOI bills are mainly intended to target the government.
yvonne says
And if I may add, a request for information under the U.S. FOI law must contain the specific nature of the information being requested, and its approximate date. This provides a safeguard against unwanted witch-hunting, in addition to the hefty-fee being a deterrent.
raissa says
You’re right, Yvonne.
FOI might mean different things to different people and different interest groups.
Parekoy says
A quick take on FOI Act, EPIRA, and Mining Act
@raissa, your piece is a feast of exotic dishes! It is like a Fugu (Puffer Fish) Sushi platter. The chef should know exactly what he is doing else the delicacy becomes your last meal of misery!
FOI Act is a very potent act. For us it will be a parasite killer. The potency is so strong that it will not discriminate whether the parasite is from the opposition or from allies. That is the dilemma of the lawmakers because it is like taking cyanide. Bottom line: This is good for the country while bad news to the parasites!
On EPIRA, that was a radioactive pill fed to the Filipino people. It was disguise as a prescription for our short term and long term energy woes during the time of Ramos, but it was prepared by the Robber Barons with special ingredient to let the Filipino have the energy but at a very astronomical rate. It was designed to milk us with our hard earned money. On business investments, EPIRA is designed to suck the potential energy (High Rates as big deterrent in investing by foreigners because of the high cost of doing business) of the business sector, so the established oligopoly can continue their lording of their respective business empire. This Act should be revisited and retuned to benefit the consumers and the country.
On Philippine Mining Act, that was cooked by the usual unscrupulous lawmakers paid measly by their masters in big business to rig the tariffs and royalties. It also wreaks havoc and poisons our forests, streams, and sources of potable water, because of poor policing. Foreigners are acquiring our natural resources for pittance. Amend this Act in the rates of royalties, in policing the environment, and the punitive measures for the violators. My relative is in the mining business, so I know.
Parekoy
07/30/2014
Posting after bravely eating a Fugu Sushi
raissa says
True, Parekoy.
This is where PNoy will be tested.
Which laws will he back? Or not back?
Parekoy says
@raissa,
After I checked my crystal ball(s), these are the vague predictions:
PNoy will pursue the FOI but with provisions that will inoculate the past sins of the violators; meaning not retroactive. This might be a compromise, to move the country forward, but this will be a reset button, which @baycas is also espousing.
PNoy under the advice of his cabinet will not touch EPIRA. The Energy Taipans will not budge to giveaway their milking cow and these Taipans are the financiers of almost all our lawmakers and the presidential aspirants. For now, it can be put in the back burner, but after FOI Act, there will be no more sacred cows.
I think the Philippine Mining Act will be revisited especially with the backing of Gina Lopez, the daughter of a Taipan, who embraced the protection of our environment. Photos of raped environment will melt the hearts of hardened lawmakers, unless most of them have the artificial ones or no heart at all.
baycas says
FYI, FOI or no FOI,
@Parekoy,
Project Number 73 needs audit
There’s transparency to meet
Parekoy says
COA is so loaded, they are currently auditing 2009 SPFs.
First in first out.
:-)
baycas says
Haven’t searched for their 2011 DAP audit…
No time now…’bye…
Read y’all later…
baycas says
Oops…
I failed to type…FOI, FYI…
That’s FIFO…from ü.
Parekoy says
@basycas,
COA auditors are practicing the Noranian method of auditing: FIFO.
If they do a special audit now on project 73 that has high probaility of implicating their allies, then they will be practicing the Vilmanian method. Why? Kasi Bobo(t) sila!
:-)