Transparency and Accountability Network

LAST February 2 and 3, the last two days before Congress adjourned for the elections, the House of Representatives failed to take up the ratification of the Bicameral Conference Committee Report on the Freedom of Information Act.

The members of the House of Speaker Prospero Nograles were caught up in conflicts largely partisan and personal, that they could not bother with important and urgent public-interest legislation. Repeatedly, the rival camps questioned the presence of a quorum on both days.

In the end, the ratification of the Freedom of Information Act fell by the wayside, collateral casualty to the little wars of the honorable members of the House.

We had hoped to see that, as promised in his press statements earlier, Speaker Nograles would submit the FOI for ratification by the House before the members adjourn to campaign for the elections. We had hoped to see proof that Speaker Nograles could demonstrate leadership and get his House in order.

For two days, we hoped in earnest that the FOI law and other legislative matters of equal import would not be held hostage to questions over quorum, nor even to a contest over who should sit in one legislative district of Cebu.

The House failed us. We had hoped in vain, leading us to raise doubts now about the sincerity of Speaker Nograles's avowed support for the Freedom of Information Act.

Under Rule X, Section 61 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, "(T)he consideration of conference committee reports shall always be in order, except when the Journal is being read, while the roll is being called, or the House is dividing on any question."

In other words, the House should have taken up the ratification of the FOI Bicameral Conference Committee Report ahead of all other business, including the privilege speeches that were allowed last February 2.

This rule derives from one reason: the highly privileged status of a Bicameral Conference Committee Report, which settles the differences of the two chambers and perfects legislation as far as Congress can. A Bicameral Conference Committee Report, in gist, is the legislative business at its nearest completion. A bill so far advanced as to become the subject of a conference report is entitled to priority over other businesses of the Congress in an earlier stage.

This rule is copied from the Rules of the United States House of Representatives (presently in Rule XII, Section 7(a)). Section 246 of Reed's Manual of General Parliamentary Law explains why a conference report "shall be in order at any time":

A conference report has precedence over any other business, because, being the procedure by which a final agreement is reached between the two Houses, the assent of both, which is essential to legislate on it, must be further advanced than any subject under debate. The courtesy, also, between the two bodies requires that precedence should be given to joint business. Accordingly, in the United States House the conference report is privileged, even against a motion to adjourn, and may be made at any time except while the journal is being read, the roll called, or the House dividing. This is but a declaration of general parliamentary law, except the privilege given as against a motion to adjourn.

But in total disregard for this rule, leaders of the House majority refused to introduce the Bicameral Conference Committee Report on the floor for ratification.

What happened, in fact, on February 2 and 3 to the FOI Act? Was it just a case of a Speaker projecting to the cameras for brownie points, and later forgetting about what he had said he believed in?

After long struggle, the passage of the Freedom of Information Act is finally near at hand.

At the resumption of session last Monday (18 January), we marched to the House of Representatives with a rally contingent of 1000 to call on our House of Representatives to stand for Freedom of Information. With Committee on Public Information Chairman Bienvenido Abante, Jr., Vice Chairman Eduardo Zialcita, Committee TWG Chairman Lorenzo "Erin" Tañada III, and Minority member Rufus Rodriguez, we met with Speaker Prospero Nograles to appeal for the immediate constitution of the House Panel to the Bicameral Conference Committee on the Freedom of Information Act.

We were not frustrated. The final action of Congress for the day was the naming of the following members to the House Panel: Rep. Bienvenido Abante, Jr. (Chairman), Rep. Eduardo Zialcita, Rep. Lorenzo "Erin" Tañada III, Rep. Rodolfo Antonino, Rep. Jesus Crispin Remulla, Rep. Rodante Marcoleta, Rep. Joel Villanueva, and Rep. Cinchona Cruz-Gonzales.

On Wednesday, 20 January, the Bicameral Conference Committee met at the Senate to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of House Bill 3732 and Senate Bill 3308. Present were Senators Alan Peter Cayetano (Chairman) and Juan Miguel Zubiri for the Senate Panel, and Representatives Abante (Chairman), Zialcita, Tañada, Antonino, and Cruz-Gonzales for the House Panel.

We congratulate the conferees present for discharging their legislative work with efficiency and dispatch, but with the responsibility and care to introduce even further refinements as they reconciled the proposed Freedom of Information Act. With the Bicameral Conference Committee approved on the same day, Freedom of Information is back on track.

We look to the Senate and to the House of Representatives to complete the final legislative actions on the bill this week. With efficient work from the Senate and House Committee secretariats, the Senate Panel has already signed the Bicameral Conference Committee Report and we only await the signatures of the House Panel. We look forward to the filing of the signed Report and to its distribution to our Senators and Representatives today (Monday).

We eagerly await immediate action by each House on the Bicameral Conference Committee Report. For a few minutes of session on Tuesday or Wednesday (26 or 27 January), we count on our Senators and Congressmen to set aside political contentions that go with the nearing elections, and unanimously ratify the Freedom of Information Act.

The Freedom of Information Act will address the substantive and procedural gaps that prevent our full enjoyment of our right to information. It will supply a definite procedure for access, enumerate clearly the information that government may validly keep secret, spell out the remedies in cases of denial, impose penalties for unlawful violation of our right to information, require the automatic disclosure of important government transactions, and establish mechanisms for the active promotion of openness in government.

When finally signed into law by the President, we have no doubt that the Freedom of Information Act will be a strategic and most significant contribution of the 14th Congress to the fundamental renewal of public institutions in our country.

Right to Know. Right Now!



Right to Know. Right Now! Campaign

25 January 2010

THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL

Gentlemen:

The move of Judicial and Bar Council member, Rep. Matias Defensor, to advance the search process for the replacement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who retires four months from now on May 17, 2010, has created a maelstrom of controversy, with public opinion weighing heavily against it.  Even within the JBC, the issue has created divisions among the members, so much so that it had to put off resolving the issue in its last deliberations.

The proponents of an early appointment of the next Chief Justice seek to mislead our people by deviously painting a grim scenario of a constitutional crisis if the position is left vacant for even a day. They wrongfully overlook the collegiate nature of the Supreme Court.  As an institution, the Supreme Court has survived periods without a Chief Justice.  As it has done on many instances in the past, the Supreme Court continues to act as a collegial body, even in the temporary absence of an appointed Chief Justice.  There is no constitutional rationalization for the Judicial and Bar Council to allow the President to appoint the next Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Puno's retirement falls well within the presidential appointment ban prescribed under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. Clearly, the 1987 Constitution bans "midnight appointments," or appointments made in the waning days of a presidency.  To advance the search and allow the present administration to appoint the next Chief Justice is to circumvent this constitutional prohibition.  The President is poised to force the appointment of not merely a department head or a bureau chief, but the chief of the highest judicial authority of the country.  If this deed is accomplished in this glaringly unconstitutional and shamelessly political manner, the respect of the people for this institution will continue to be gravely affected.

The JBC should not allow itself to be used by manipulative back room operators who negotiate on behalf of narrow and dark interests.  It should not allow itself to be bullied into becoming a party to this unconscionable travesty.

Given the highly controversial nature of the issue, we urge the JBC to open up its deliberations on this matter in full view of the public. With public trust of institutions at an all-time low, the JBC would do well to dispel doubts by discussing this issue publicly.  It is time to regain the trust of the public and make known how the JBC  intends to serve the common good.

17 December 2009

HON. PROSPERO C. NOGRALES

Speaker

Thru:  HON. ARTHUR D. DEFENSOR

Majority Leader

Dear Mr. Speaker:

We are happy to report that the Senate has approved on Third Reading Senate Bill No. 3308 otherwise known as the "Freedom of Information Act" or what is listed among the Speaker's Legislative Reform Agenda for the House of the People under Political and Governance Reforms, "Access to Public Information."

As principal authors of its counterpart measure House Bill No. 3732, and, working closely on this  bill,   we move for the full adoption by the House of  Senate Bill No. 3308.

SB No. 3308 is as much a House version as it is a Senate version.  We were informed by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Information that their committee adopted HB No. 3732 as starting point for their work.  The result is a Senate version that does not depart much from our version and remains faithful to our frame of introducing the much needed implementing details for full government transparency, subject only to a narrow regime of reasonable limitations.

Indeed, its enactment into law would be the 14^th Congress' critical contribution to a dynamic democracy, ensuring informed participation by its citizenry.  Let this Congress be truly a House of the People.

Very truly yours,

REP. LORENZO R. TAÑADA III                            REP. EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA

For the Majority                                              For the Minority

Chair, TWG, HB 3732