What confidentiality? Rina Jimenez-David Philippine Daily Inquirer
November 05, 2009
IN JUNE THIS YEAR, AS TWO MEDIA ORGANIzations—the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and Vera Files—began examining the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of President Macapagal-Arroyo and members of her family, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an order “tightening rules on the release of SALNs.” An assistant ombudsman would later explain that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez’s order was meant to “protect the confidentiality of SALNs” and of the officials who submitted the forms.
What confidentiality? The reason for SALNs is precisely for public officials to make official and public their net worth before and during their terms. The SALNs exist primarily to give government agencies, as well as the voting public, a means to track the wealth-generating (or losing) history of public officials, as well as any potential source of conflict of interest or even corruption.
By nature, SALNs are public documents, and as such, in filling them up and affixing their signatures, officials are duty-bound to be accurate, factual and comprehensive. No fudging of facts, no white lies, no cover-ups.
When the PCIJ report was released, it soon became apparent why the Arroyo administration was rather wary about the public gaining access to the President’s SALNs. An analysis of the forms showed that in the years from 1991 (when Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo joined government) to 2008, the President had increased her income by a mind-boggling 2,000 percent. From an annual net worth of P6.73 million in 1992, the President reported a net worth of P60.07 million in 2000 (during which she became senator and vice president), and has added another P10.97 million to that since 2001, when she became president.
Her annual income, the report stated, was “20 times her lawful gross salary of P45,000 a month.” Contrary to the saying that politics and public service is the start of a long road to poverty, public service for GMA and her family has certainly turned out to be very profitable indeed.
* * *
THE INFORMATION in the Arroyos’ SALNs (the President and her two sons, Representatives Mikey and Dato) and the Ombudsman’s belated attempt at a cover-up illustrate exactly what’s at stake in a pending Freedom of Information Bill at the Senate.
A counterpart bill has already made it through the hurdles in the House, while the Senate version enters the period of interpellation when Congress convenes on Monday. But with only seven session days left before they take up the budget after which the life of this Congress ends, the schedule is very tight, indeed.
Supporters of the bill, sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano and co-sponsored by Sen. Miguel Zubiri (a heartening bit of bi-partisan cooperation), say that after the interpellation of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, described as “fairly constructive,” only two other senators, Joker Arroyo and Nene Pimentel, have indicated their intention to raise questions on the floor.
Here’s hoping their interventions prove brief and pithy (and constructive, too) so that the Senate could pass the bill without too much delay and after a brief bi-cam, we will finally a have a bill protecting and promoting the public’s right and freedom to information.
* * *
BACKGROUND material provided by the Access to Information Network, a coalition of 11 NGOs and media organizations that has been the primary force lobbying for the bill, says that the public’s right to access to information is enshrined in the Constitution, although an enabling law has yet to be passed setting forth such a policy and the procedures to be followed.
“Citizens remain in constant struggle with government agencies for access to important official information,” says the Network. “A key problem is lack of legislation. While the Supreme Court has upheld the enforceability of the constitutional right to information, its effective implementation has for the past two decades suffered from the lack of the necessary substantive and procedural details that only Congress can provide.”
For now, the “closest to a statutory procedure” on public access to information is found in the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Among the duties of public officials and employees enumerated, notes the Network, is “to make all public documents accessible to the public, within reasonable working hours.”
But most agencies, it says, apply instead another section of RA 6713 which directs public officials “to act promptly on letters and requests sent by the public within 15 days from receipt thereof.” Apparently speaking from experience, the Network members say that “requests are often met with a letter within 15 days … acknowledging receipt of the request, and stating that the request is being considered. If one does not follow up on the request, often the acknowledgment letter will be the end of it.” Certainly a case of abiding by the letter of law while ignoring its spirit entirely.
* * *
IN THE run-up to next May’s elections, everybody’s talking about clean and honest government and observing the principles of transparency and accountability. Well, passing the Freedom of Information Bill would be one way of guaranteeing that the officials we elect will stay clean—because they know the public or the many inquisitive souls out there will be able to follow any paper trail of malfeasance or deception.
Certainly, government officials would no longer be able to mouth platitudes about honesty while conveniently hiding behind bureaucratic procedures, red tape and just plain bare-faced deadma.
