 |
| Rep. Erico B. Aumentado |
By JUNE S. BLANCO
QUEZON CITY – The Freedom of Information
(FOI) BillI is very much alive.
Rep. Erico Aumentado
(Bohol, 2nd District), took exception to the editorial of the Philippine
Daily Inquirer (PDI) and the commentary of Ma. Ceres Doyo on the alleged murder
of the FOI in its November 14 issue. He said the editorial and the commentary
do not speak well of the Lower House and of the Aquino administration.
While Aumentado accedes
that the attack of the PDI editorial and the Doyo column are not without basis,
he insists that “there is a cogent necessity to pass the bill to support the
Aquino administration’s mantra for transparency, accountability and his
righteous path or daang matuwid of governance.”
He said the FOI bill is
anchored on Section 7, Article III, the Bill of Rights of the Philippine
Constitution that says: 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,
as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development,
shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided
by law.
The Bohol solon said
even the Supreme Court relies on that provision in its rulings.
He said the new constitution now expressly
recognizes that the people are entitled to information on matters of public
concern and thus are expressly granted access to official records, as well as
documents of official acts, or transactions, or decisions, subject to such
limitations imposed by law.
The incorporation of this right in the
Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free exchange of
information in a democracy, he explained. There can be no realistic perception
by the public of the nation’s problems, nor a meaningful democratic
decision-making if they are denied access to information of general interest.
Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with the
exigencies of the times, he said.
Maintaining the flow of such information
depends on protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if
either process is interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases, he added. However,
restrictions on access to certain records may be imposed by law. Thus, access
restrictions imposed to control insurrection have been permitted upon a showing
of immediate and impending danger that renders ordinary means of control
inadequate to maintain order, he explained.
Above all the FOI bill –
once enacted into law – will become a single, strong and vital deterrent force
against graft and corruption which goes into the heart of President Aquino’s
winning tagline: Kung Walang Kurap, Walang Mahirap.
The FOI bill problem
came about when his Nueva Ecija colleague insisted to insert a provision on the
right of reply in the freedom of information measure tackled by the Committee
on Public Information.
Aumentado said the
proponent wants to ensure that those being maligned or attacked in media must
have the same opportunity to defend himself. It is a highly reasonable ground
in terms of practical consideration; and perhaps in a restricted sense, as an
adjunct of the freedom of expression.
But the eminent
constitutionalist, Fr. Joaquin J. Bernas, in his column, Sounding Board, also
in the PDI, said should the right of reply become part of the FOI Bill or of
the cybercrime law, it will be a good issue to take up as speech and not just
as illicit taking of property.
However, the advocates
of the right to reply are not without recourse. For the Journalists Code of
Ethics formulated by the Philippine Press Institute (PPI) and the National
Press Club (NPC) in Section 1reminds practitioners to scrupulously report and
interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts or to distort
the truth by omission or improper emphasis.
In the same vein, the
2007 Broadcast Code of the Philippines provides adequate safeguards for the
right to reply. In Article II, Analysis and Commentaries, Section 6 thereof
provides however hostingpposing or contrasting sides of
public issues should be fairly presented.
It is therefore clear,
the Bohol solon said, that the right of reply is being enshrined in the
Journalists Code of Ethics for print media with the PPI and NPC as the
enforcers, and the 2007 Broadcast Code of the Philippines with the Kapisanan ng
mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas as the implementing arm for broadcast journalism.
Both the print and
broadcast media codes provide sanctions and penalties like the FOI bill, for
violators to suffer after the right to due process is satisfied.
To balance the equation,
the government must discipline its ranks in the enforcement of the freedom of
information, if enacted into law; while media must see to it that the code of
conduct for journalists, whether in print or broadcast media, must likewise be
enforced without fear or favour, Aumentado said.
This way, the freedom of
expression – as the quintessence of a vibrant democracy – can flower and grow
more expansively under a condition where the government and media industry
could work together to strengthen the foundation of a transparent, accountable
and righteous governance, that has earned the trust of the Filipino people and
the global community as well, he added.
