The Freedom of Information Act—a reconciled version of the Senate and House versions– died in the final day of the 14th Congress, after being approved by the bicameral conference committee and ratified by the Senate in February of this year.
It was the farthest the bill had gone since the first version filed in 1992 (See sidebar, Is this the end? Fourteen years of effort—but still counting). Widely expected to pass, among other reasons because of assurances to that effect by House Speaker Prospero Nograles and Malacanang’s claim that it was supporting it, the bill can be reintroduced in the 15th Congress—but it will have to start from square one.
To help speed it along, the advocates of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act have asked the next president to help realize the passage into law of the long-delayed bill that’s meant to help ensure transparency and accountability in governance.
President-elect Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Aquino III, who was among the senators who voted for the Senate Bill 3308, the Senate version of the bill, responded by promising to make congressional passage of the FOI bill a priority of his legislative agenda once he assumes office this July.
Inquirer.net
Philstar.com
GMAnews.tv
Congress.gov.ph
Minimalgovernment.net
Aer.ph
Ansa-eap.net
Access to Information Network
Right to Know Right Now! Campaign
Only 128 out of the 267 representatives in the Lower House attended the June 4 session. The rest had taken an early vacation or were busy in their new posts—or deliberately stayed away to kill the FOI bill.
The following are the representatives who were either absent or did not respond to the roll call in the last session of the House of Representatives. The list came from House Speaker Prospero Nograles.
Highlighted in bold letters are the congressmen who were among the more than 180 co-sponsors of the Freedom of Information Act. More »
Aruna Roy is a leading Right to Information activist in India. She helped in demanding records and uncovering irregularities in Rajasthan, a village in India. This in turn led to the passage of the Indian Law on Right to Information in 2000.
However, the window for the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill is about to shut as well.
The FOI bill can only be ratified until Friday, June 4, right before the House of Representatives adjourns sine die. But the 14th Congress still needs to canvass the votes for the President and the Vice President.
If Congress fails to ratify FOI bill within that period, the bill goes back to square one. Its advocates will have to lobby again, this time the 15th congress.
The FOI bill, if enacted into law, guarantees access to data held by the state in all its affairs, and provides penalties for officials who fail to disclose or release the requested information. This bill is supported by Article 3 Section 7 of the Bill of Rights which recognizes the people’s right to know on matters of public concern.
Fourteen years after the bill was first submitted to the legislative department, the FOI bill was finally approved by the bicameral conference committee and ratified by the Senate February of this year, just before it adjourned for the elections.
According to reports, however, the members of the House of Representatives failed to ratify it because of the lack of quorum. This is the nearest the FOI bill has reached prior to passing.
PHILIPPINES—The Manila-based Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) supports the call of media advocacy groups and other concerned sectors to spare media organizations and journalists from threats and attacks while covering the clashes between Thailand’s security forces and protesters.
Violence related to the occupation of portions of Central Bangkok by the Red Shirt partisans of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, had worsened in the last few days, forcing the government to declare an 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew on May 19. Reports said several buildings were set on fire and there were at least four dead and 40 injuries recorded. According to The Bangkok Post, there have been 71 deaths and 1,306 injuries related to the political crisis since April 10.
Journalism can be a dangerous profession especially during crisis situations. The Southeast Asian Press Alliance, a regional alliance of press freedom and free expression groups of which CMFR is a founding member, reported that an Italian photojournalist has died from a gunshot wound and four other media workers injured.
Protesters turned on the local media, which are struggling with credibility and public perceptions of bias. News accounts said rioters attacked government station Channel 3 TV, the office and at least 10 vehicles of which were burned. The TV station stopped broadcasting by 4:30 p.m. The staff of The Bangkok Post and The Nation newspapers also evacuated their respective offices after receiving threats.
CMFR urges both sides to allow the press to work and continue the release of information vital to the public interest. All sides should guarantee the safety of those covering the conflict in Bangkok and nearby provinces.
CMFR maintains that the best protection for journalists is to practice professional and ethical reporting, and urges all practitioners to be accurate as well as fair, and to provide reports that are balanced as well as non-partisan without adding to the already volatile political situation in Thailand.
The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) is concerned that media groups and individuals remain vulnerable, especially as tension rises and spreads in Thailand. Following government’s move to permanently dismantle the rally site in Bangkok, there are fears that protests will spread to outlying provinces, and along with them, a general hazard—and even hostility—towards the covering media.
The situation is certainly not helped by reports that some radio stations sympathetic to the Red Shirts have been engaged in incendiary commentary. SEAPA urges restraint and responsibility, even as it also reminds government to resist any temptation to restrict the flow of news and opinions in the country. SEAPA reiterates its call on all sides to the crisis to respect the important role journalists play in disseminating news and commentary, and in providing reliable information that all stakeholders need to arrive at some peaceful resolution.
At the same time, SEAPA reiterates the call made by the Thai Journalists Association on all members of the media to practice ethical and responsible journalism, to not take sides, and instead to simply provide as much reliable information and commentary as they could to help Thai society understand and navigate their current crisis.
Although the country has had several elections since the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship, and many look at elections as of no particular significance to the country’s present or future, the elections of 10 May 2010 do depart from others in several respects. The country is holding its first nationwide automated elections today; some 50,000 candidates are vying for nearly 18,000 national and local government posts; and with a population of about 90 million, over 50 million are registered voters. The majority of these are not only young; they also belong to the legions of the poor, those sectors of Philippine society with, as it were, the biggest stakes in the kind of leadership the country elects.
Despite the lessons of experience, perhaps out of naivete or the hope bred of desperation, Filipinos continue to look to the ballot as an instrument of change and reform. Despite fraud, terrorism and vote buying, elections are the one thing on which citizens supposedly have a direct influence on the results—affording them the chance to reject leaders who have not addressed their needs and aspirations, and installing into power in the place of the corrupt and the incompetent those that they hope will finally provide them the competent and honest government that has eluded them since independence.
The role of the media takes on larger significance in a situation both full of hope as well as disappointment. Information that’s both accurate as well as significant is the one imperative citizens need to meaningfully participate in public affairs. How the news media particularly do their jobs is of special relevance to how well citizens are able to choose the country’s leaders.
Providing meaningful and accurate information depends not only on the skills of individual reporters and editors. Their understanding and adherence to the ethical standards of journalism are also crucial. A journalist may be skilled, but if he or she is corrupt, and in the pay of this or that politician, he or she actually undermines the information function of the news media by providing information skewed in favor of his or her patrons.
The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) noted in its monitoring of the news coverage of the 2010 campaign and elections that despite the early preparations and efforts to improve the quality of reporting, the Philippine press still has the tendency to prioritize the exclusive and the sensational over the significant to the detriment of the ethical principles of truth-telling, fairness, balance, and public accountability.
The recent incident which involved one of the biggest multimedia networks in the Philippines sparked a debate among the media and the public on the use and protection of (anonymous) sources, corroboration of facts, and the possibility that the media are used as propaganda tools by candidates during the campaign and election period.
Read below the CMFR statement which scored the faulty news item presented by ABS-CBN 2, and the network’s response.
The last elections demonstrated how some of the current laws in the Philippines infringe on press freedom.
One such law is Republic Act 9006 or The Fair Election Act. On paper, the law seems a genuine attempt to level the playing field for all candidates during elections. The law mandates the State, “during the election period, (to) supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of media of communication or information to guarantee or ensure equal opportunity for public service, including access to media time and space, and the equitable right to reply, for public information campaigns and fora among candidates and assure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.”
The law’s intent seems laudable, but its implementing rules and regulations are violative of press freedom.
News organizations and individuals are free to quote, cite, and/or republish articles from the Eye on Ethics website, but proper attribution and link should be made.
Thank you.
