REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST REGULAR SESSION

IN RE: PETITION FOR INDIRECT INITIATIVE TO ENACT A NATIONAL LEGISLATION TITLED "AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO INFORMATION" __________________

PUBLIC SERVICES LABOR INDEPENDENT CONFEDERATION (PSLINK), PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT (PRRM), NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (NUJP), FOI YOUTH INITIATIVE (FYI), ALLIANCE OF PROGRESSIVE LABOR (APL), CAUCUS OF DEVELOPMENT NGO NETWORKS (CODE-NGO), SOCIAL WATCH PHILIPPINES, FOCUS ON THE GLOBAL SOUTH PHILIPPINES, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY NETWORK (TAN), PEACE WOMEN PARTNERS, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), PRUDENTIALIFE WARRIORS PILIPINAS, FILIPINO MIGRANT WORKERS GROUP (FMWG), AKSYONG KABAYANIHAN PARA SA ORGANISADONG PAGBABAGO (ANGKOP), CENTER FOR MEDIA FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY (CMFR), ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY, ACTION FOR ECONOMIC REFORMS, PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM (PCIJ),

(COLLECTIVELY, THE "RIGHT TO KNOW. RIGHT NOW! COALITION"), Petitioners. x---------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION Petitioners, by undersigned representatives, respectfully state that: Nature of the Petition 1. This is a petition for Indirect Initiative filed with the House of Representatives under Section 3 (b) and Section 11 of Republic Act 6735, or "The Initiative and Referendum Act", which provide: Section 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean: xxx (b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative body for action. xxx Section 11. Indirect Initiative. Any duly accredited people's organization, as defined by law, may file a petition for indirect initiative with the House of Representatives, and other legislative bodies. The petition shall contain a summary of the chief purposes and contents of the bill that the organization proposes to be enacted into law by the legislature. The procedure to be followed on the initiative bill shall be the same as the enactment of any legislative measure
2

before the House of Representatives except that the said initiative bill shall have precedence over the pending legislative measures on the committee. 2. The Petition proposes the enactment by Congress into a national legislation of an Initiative Bill titled " AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO INFORMATION", also to be known as the "PEOPLE'S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT". 2.1. A copy of the Initiative Bill is hereto attached as Annex "A" and made an integral part of this Petition. 3. Petitioners are filing a similar Petition with the Senate for the passage of its counterpart version.

The Petitioners 4. Petitioners are people's organizations, being bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership and structure. 4.1. Petitioner Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK) is an umbrella organization of 386 public sector unions, duly organized and existing under Philippine law, representing more than 80,000 members from the local government units, state universities and colleges, national government departments, government-owned-and-controlled corporations, and government financing institutions. It is committed to the development of progressive, responsive and effective public services in the country. 4.2. Petitioner Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine law, working to enhance the capacity of rural communities in the planning, advocacy and implementation of sustainable development, through an integrated program of education, livelihood, health, habitat, environment, and self-governance.
3

4.3. Petitioner National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) is a union of journalists duly organized and existing under Philippine law, working to promote and safeguard the economic interest and social well-being of journalists, upgrade their professional skills, and raise the standards of their ethical practice. 4.4. Petitioner FOI Youth Initiative (FYI) is a national network of eighty-five (85) youth and student organizations that are campaigning for transparency and accountability in government through the immediate passage of the Freedom of Information Bill. It works in solidarity with different sectors of society in the clamor for more solid mechanisms that enable governance that is open and honest to the people. 4.4.1. A list of the FYI network members is hereto attached as Annex "B". 4.5. Petitioner Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL) is a national labor center duly organized and existing under Philippine law, working to advance social movement unionism to protect the rights of all workers, not just the wage earners. 4.6. Petitioner Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO) is a coalition, duly organized and existing under Philippine law, of six (6) national networks and six (6) regional networks representing more than 1,600 development NGOs, people's organizations and cooperatives nationwide, doing advocacy work on transparency, anti-corruption and government accountability; peoples participation in governance; asset reform; the environment; social services; civil society organizations good governance; Official Development Aid reform; and democratization and development. 4.7. Petitioner Social Watch Philippines is a national network of citizens groups and alliances organized as a non-stock, non-profit corporation under Philippine law, working on social development and financing issues. 4.8. Petitioner Focus on the Global South (Philippines) is an association of individuals organized as a non-stock, non-profit corporation under Philippine
4

law, doing policy research and advocacy work on trade, land and climate issues. 4.9. Petitioner Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN) is a coalition of multi-sectoral organizations organized as a non-stock, non-profit foundation under Philippine law, working to contribute significantly to the reduction of corruption in the Philippines by formulating, advocating, and where appropriate, implementing strategic reform initiatives to promote transparency and accountability. 4.10. Petitioner Peace Women Partners is a nonstock, non-profit corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine law, composed of women from different professions and from the grassroots sectors working to contribute in the creation of peace through the arts and activism. 4.11. Petitioner Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) is a union of workers at Philippine Airlines, duly organized and existing under Philippine law, fighting for the security of tenure of its members and advocating for reforms to better protect workers rights in general. 4.12. Petitioner Prudentialife Warriors Pilipinas is an association of Prudentialife planholders fighting for a just and equitable resolution of the financial bankruptcy of Prudentialife Plans, and seeks reforms in the regulation of pre-need companies to better protect consumers. 4.13. Petitioner Filipino Migrant Workers Group (FMWG) is a stock corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws, formed by Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) as a vehicle for their reintegration in the Philippines. As such, it involves itself in sociopolitical issues and concerns that impact on OFW interests. 4.14. Petitioner Aksyong Kabayanihan Para sa Organisadong Pagbabago (ANGKOP) is an association of concerned citizens organized as a non-stock, non-profit organization involved in advocacies promoting governance reform and in efforts to change Philippine politics through the emergence of reform-minded young leaders.
5

4.15. Petitioner Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) is a non-stock, non-profit organization duly organized and existing under Philippine law, engaged in a range of activities and efforts to protect and strengthen the press as a pillar of democracy; to establish a framework of responsibility and ethics in the practice of the press; to raise levels of competence for coverage of special areas of news; to promote journalistic excellence; and to engage different sectors of society in the growth of a quality press in the Philippines. 4.16. Petitioner Ang Kapatiran Party, also known as the Alliance for the Common Good, is a registered national political party that stands on a platform and specific policy objectives aimed at enhancing the common good, promoting the politics of virtue and the politics of duty. 4.17. Petitioner Action for Economic Reforms is an association of concerned citizens organized as a non-stock, non-profit corporation under Philippine law, doing research and advocacy work on economic development and governance issues. 4.18. Petitioner Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) is an independent, nonprofit media agency of journalists that specializes in investigative reporting. The PCIJ believes that the media play a crucial role in scrutinizing and strengthening democratic institutions, defending and asserting press freedom, freedom of information, and freedom of expression. The PCIJ contributes to this end by promoting investigative reporting on current issues in Philippine society and on matters of large public interest. 5. The Petition is also endorsed by the following concerned citizens: Lorenzo R. Taada III; Bishop Broderick S. Pabillo, DD; Ana Maria R. Nemenzo; Arthur A. Aguila; Jerome Patrick D. Cruz; and Leah Zorina E. Aguila. Their affidavits of endorsement are hereto attached as Annex "C". 6. The Petitioners and endorsers may be collectively referred to as the "Right to Know. Right Now! Coalition".

7. Petitioners and endorsers may be served with summons, notices, documents, communications and other processes through the Institute for Freedom of Information, with address at Unit 1403, West Trade Center, 132 West Avenue, Quezon City. Chief Purposes of the Initiative Bill 8. The people's right to information held by government is expressly recognized in both international and Philippine law. At the international level, access to government-held information has evolved into a recognized human right. It is now acknowledged that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, and its counterpart provision under Article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, embody not just freedom of opinion and expression, but a right of access to information as well. 9. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 34 issued at its 102nd session on 1129 July 2011 in Geneva, expounded on the right to information aspect of Article (19) 2 of ICCPR: Article 19, paragraph 2 embraces a right of access to information held by public bodies. Such information includes records held by a public body, regardless of the form in which the information is stored, its source and the date of production. xxx To give effect to the right of access to information, States parties should proactively put in the public domain Government information of public interest. States parties should make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective and practical access to such information. States parties should also enact the necessary procedures, whereby one may gain access to information, such as by means of freedom of information legislation. The procedures should provide
7

for the timely processing of requests for information according to clear rules that are compatible with the Covenant. Fees for requests for information should not be such as to constitute an unreasonable impediment to access to information. Authorities should provide reasons for any refusal to provide access to information. Arrangements should be put in place for appeals from refusals to provide access to information as well as in cases of failure to respond to requests. 10. In the Philippines the people's right to information is expressly recognized in no less than the Constitution. Article III (Bill of Rights), Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution states: 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. 11. Complementing the Bill of Rights provision on FOI is the state policy of full disclosure of all state transactions involving public interest. Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), Section 28 reads: Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. 12. While the Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to information under the Bill of Rights is self-executory, it lacks the substantive and procedural details necessary for its effective and predictable implementation. 13. Thus, the Initiative Bill has the following chief specific purposes:

14. First, it seeks to address the lack of definite scope and limitations to the right to information. The constitutional provision states that access to information shall be afforded our citizens subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Congress has yet to fulfill this mandate. While the Supreme Court has stepped in by enumerating a number of exceptions through jurisprudence, the expected lack of exactness in the absence of legislation opens the enumeration to wide interpretation. In Chavez vs. PCGG (G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998), the Supreme Court noted that "there are no specific laws prescribing the exact limitations within which the right may be exercised or the correlative state duty may be obliged. Given this, it has been easy for government agencies to set up discretionary exceptions, and citizens have to deal with a litigious process to challenge the denial of access. 15. Second, it seeks to address the absence of a uniform and effective procedure for access to information. The closest to a procedure that Congress has provided is contained in Section 5 of Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), which lists the duties of public officials and employees. Letter (e) of said section states: Make documents accessible to the public. All public documents must be made accessible to, and readily available for inspection by, the public within reasonable working hours. In practice, government has evaded the application of this plain provision by applying instead letter (a) of the same section: Act promptly on letters and requests. All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request. Thus, a response within fifteen days (such as mere acknowledgement of the request) without granting access is deemed substantive compliance. 16. Third, it seeks to address the absence of sanctions for unlawful denial or delay of access to information. Because of the lack of definite procedure as well as the absence of definite scope and limitations, it is difficult to enforce the general administrative or penal sanctions provided in RA 6713. Putting in place effective sanctions will work as a deterrent against violation of the right to information, or alternatively, as a mechanism for accountability when the right is violated.
9

17. Beyond the above specific purposes, the Initiative Bill will also promote the general purposes that the framers of the Constitution sought to achieve with the express recognition of the right to information and the adoption of full disclosure of transactions as a state policy. The twin constitutional provisions of the right to information and the policy of full public disclosure of government transactions are intended to promote the fundamental precepts of democracy, people's participation, public office being a public trust, government accountability, prevention of corruption, and responsive decision-making. 18. These precepts are emphatically expounded by the Supreme Court in its decisions relating to the right to information. In Legaspi vs Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. 72119, May 29, 1987), the Supreme Court said: The incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee of access to information of public concern is a recognition of the essentiality of the free flow of ideas and information in a democracy (Baldoza v. Dimaano, Adm. Matter No. 1120-MJ, May 5, 1976, 17 SCRA 14). In the same way that free discussion enables members of society to cope with the exigencies of their time (Thornhill vs. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88,102 [1939]), access to information of general interest aids the people in democratic decision-making (87 Harvard Law Review 1505 [1974]) by giving them a better perspective of the vital issues confronting the nation. 19. In Valmonte vs Belmonte (G.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989), the Supreme Court observed: An informed citizenry with access to the diverse currents in political, moral and artistic thought and data relative to them, and the free exchange of ideas and discussion of issues thereon, is vital to the democratic government envisioned under our Constitution. The cornerstone of this republican system of government is delegation of power by the people to the State. In this system, governmental
10

agencies and institutions operate within the limits of the authority conferred by the people. Denied access to information on the inner workings of government, the citizenry can become prey to the whims and caprices of those to whom the power had been delegated. The postulate of public office as a public trust, institutionalized in the Constitution (in Art. XI, Sec. 1) to protect the people from abuse of governmental power, would certainly be were empty words if access to such information of public concern is denied, except under limitations prescribed by implementing legislation adopted pursuant to the Constitution. x x x It is in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the people's will. Yet, this open dialogue can be effective only to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently. Only when the participants in the discussion are aware of the issues and have access to information relating thereto can such bear fruit. The right to information is an essential premise of a meaningful right to speech and expression. But this is not to say that the right to information is merely an adjunct of and therefore restricted in application by the exercise of the freedoms of speech and of the press. Far from it. The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in government. 20. In Chavez vs PCGG (G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1988), the Supreme Court noted:
11

In general, writings coming into the hands of public officers in connection with their official functions must be accessible to the public, consistent with the policy of transparency of governmental affairs. This principle is aimed at affording the people an opportunity to determine whether those to whom they have entrusted the affairs of the government are honestly, faithfully and competently performing their functions as public servants. Undeniably, the essence of democracy lies in the free flow of thought; but thoughts and ideas must be well-informed so that the public would gain a better perspective of vital issues confronting them and, thus, be able to criticize as well as participate in the affairs of the government in a responsible, reasonable and effective manner. Certainly, it is by ensuring an unfettered and uninhibited exchange of ideas among a well-informed public that a government remains responsive to the changes desired by the people. 21. Finally, in Chavez vs PEA (G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002), the Supreme Court stated: These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights. These twin provisions are essential to the exercise of freedom of expression. If the government does not disclose its official acts, transactions and decisions to citizens, whatever citizens say, even if expressed without any restraint, will be speculative and amount to nothing. These twin provisions are also essential to hold public officials "at all times x x x accountable to the people," for unless citizens have the proper information, they cannot hold public officials accountable for anything. Armed with the right
12

information, citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective implementation. An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper functioning of any democracy. Contents of the Initiative Bill 22. In summary, the contents of the Initiative Bill (a) clarifies the scope of accessible information by defining clearly the list of allowable exceptions, thereby removing the wide discretion in withholding or granting access; (b) provides a uniform and speedy procedure for peoples access to information, thereby closing the loophole that allows administrative avoidance of access; (c) enumerates specific acts violative of the right to information that constitute administrative or criminal offenses; and (4) introduces mechanisms to facilitate better citizen access to information, such as providing standards for record keeping and mandating the pro-active disclosure of classes of information imbued with high public interest. 23. The Initiative Bill subject of this Petition already embodies the high and broad level of consensus not just among the Petitioners, but also with the various stakeholders in both government and private sectors that were consulted in the long legislative history of the proposed FOI law. The Petitioners have taken into account the bicameral conference report of the 14th Congress, the proposed amendments by the Malacaang Study Group to address concerns expressed by President Aquino, and the further refinements introduced in the 15th Congress by the House Committee on Public Information Technical Working Group headed by former Deputy Speaker Lorenzo R. Taada III, by the Senate Committee on Public Information headed by Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II, and by the Senate plenary (particularly in response to the interpellation by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago) that approved the FOI bill up to its Third Reading. 24. As stated in paragraph 2.1., a copy of the Initiative Bill is hereto attached as Annex "A" and made an integral part of this Petition.

13

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that: 1. The House of Representatives receive, and forthwith commence the enactment of the Initiative Bill contained in this Petition following the same procedure for the enactment of any legislative measure before the House of Representatives; 2. The Committee to which the Initiative Bill is referred give precedence to it over other pending legislative measures in the Committee. Other reliefs, just and equitable in the premises, are likewise prayed for. Filed with the House of Representatives, 01 July 2013.

Annie Enriquez Geron Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK) Isagani R. Serrano Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) Rupert Francis Diohen Mangilit National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) Allan Pangilinan FOI Youth Initiative (FYI) Adolfo Jose Montesa

Josua Mata Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL) Sixto Donato C. Macasaet Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO) Leonor Magtolis Briones
14

Social Watch Philippines

Clarissa V. Militante Focus on the Global South - Philippines Vincent T. Lazatin Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN) Mercedes L. Angeles Peace Women Partners Gerry F. Rivera Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) Rolando G. Ocampo Prudentialife Warriors Pilipinas Francisco S. Aguilar Jr. Filipino Migrant Workers Group (FMWG) Eirene Jhone E. Aguila Aksyong Kabayanihan Pagbabago (ANGKOP)

Para

sa

Organisadong

Kathryn Roja G. Raymundo Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) Norman V. Cabrera Ang Kapatiran Party Jessica Reyes Cantos Nepomuceno Malaluan Action for Economic Reforms
15

A.

Maria Lourdes C. Mangahas Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (Note: Copies with Signatures and Verifications/Secretary's Certificates are filed with the House of Representatives)

16