Transcript of Sen. Grace Poe's dzRJ Interview

Cong. Jing Paras: Hello Senator! I'm very glad that you are very aggressive in your quest to have the FOI really become a law.

Sen. Grace Poe: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be given this opportunity by you, Congressman Paras and of course Charm. Thank you for the feedback on what we are trying to do but there's a lot of work to be done.

Paras: We heard about a week ago that there seems to be some obstacles to the immediate passage of the FOI. As we all know, this is the 3rd Congress that the FOI has been struggling with obstacles now. Senator, because you are now on top of the situation, and it seems that there are still a lot of expectations from your colleagues.

Poe: Actually, I think there won't be much of a problem in the Senate. As you know Congressman, this has passed in the 15th Congress. What we're doing now is we're doing our plenary so that if there's any particular amendment or style or if there's a question on the new provisions that we added, we can make those changes at the period of amendment. Of course there's always a snag, like for example, a question on the exemptions--national security and over-riding public interest. The definition should be made clear. So we are just reiterating the exemptions to make sure that it won't be subject to abuse and we're also clarifying because there are certain rights that are in our Constitution, like the right to privacy, of course we cannot infringe on that. We also have to be sure that all rights should be protected and balanced.

Paras: You mentioned these issues like national security and right to privacy, which are very important and are vital issues, so of course provided for in our Constitution, but do you think, in terms of national security, would it be liberal in terms of interpretation? Government or certain officials in government would always want to protect their term in the guise of national security. Senator, from your point of view, do you think there should be a very strict interpretation of this or should the interpretation be liberal in order to achieve the ends of this freedom of information.

Poe: Of course, our apprehensions about abuse are valid. However, when it comes to national security, there are several outlying definitions, for example, clear and present danger. The danger is not just possible but it is evident. Another remedy that we have in the FOI is that there is always a presumption to the right to information. So if a person, a private individual or somebody in government will question the decision of the head of the agency to classify a document as a national security component, that person can appeal to a related court. That person can also appeal to the head of the agency. In our FOI, there's a legal presumption on the right to information. Second, that classification cannot be used to cover a wrongful act. Also, a period of declassification--say the president classified something, or classified for executive session; he has to give a period of declassification. For example, within three years or after the investigation of an ongoing criminal activity, there has to be a period of declassification, number one. Number two, there are remedies, you can go to the courts, either the Ombudsman or the regular courts and third, you cannot really use it to cover a wrongful act.

Paras: Senator, did you also consider the penalties as a deterrent from withholding these documents. Because, of course we will recognize the presumption of regularity or validity of asking for these documents but at the end of the day it will still be the discretion of the head of agency if it will allow flexibility on his part but it will recourse through the courts and eventually, with the knowledge that it will be found to have violated the law, it should be the penalty that would make a deterrent of such flexibility of action. Have you considered the provision of penalties that will be imposed on this, Senator?

Poe: You're actually right sir, what we're trying to do is we're adding teeth to the law by providing appropriate penalties. Because at this point, the penalties are really minor. But what we have now is that if we violate, there is actually imprisonment of not more than six months, if I'm not mistaken, there's also a fine. And probably there is a criminal sanction wherein you can actually get dismissed from your office or from your position now. When it comes to these penalties or for any questions you can always go to the Ombudsman, as I mentioned, or you can go to the regular court to be able to determine if the agency is abusing his or her power in classifying particular information.

Paras: Senator, thank you so much for mentioning the issue of going to the courts. Would you probably put in a provision that there should be a special court created for this purpose because ano po, itong information is vital and exigency is needed here, otherwise the purpose, in case you want these documents, will no longer be there if the delay is very pervasive. If we go to court, it must be fast. Maybe there shall be summary proceedings that should be done so maybe a special court can do this and the Supreme Court will be obliged to assign a special court for this purpose.

Poe: I'm glad you raised that point sir. Actually, in our FOI probation, the Ombudsman would have an FOI desk. This should be able to resolve their cases within 60 days after the proceedings...The Ombudsman cannot compel an agency to divulge information but it can snap on penalties on the particular government officials so that can be the function of the Ombudsman. The regular court could actually compel the agency to divulge the information now when it comes to the regular court, that's what we are trying to work on if there will be a special court for FOI concern.

Paras: Ma'am just last one question, you mentioned also that one of the concerns is the right of privacy is entitlement of a public official?

Poe: Not necessarily, there are certain aspects that the public official's life should be kept private for example, this man, for example where do your children go to school? If it has no relevance to your work, but when you are a public official, more and more information about your particular structure or situation should be made public like for example, your SALN.

Paras: That's very good...

Charms Espina: ...I'd like to ask just a few questions regarding the current state of the freedom of information bill. First of all, I was thinking, apart from the freedom of information bill, in terms of documenting also to the public, do you think that maybe the freedom of information bill should also be more effective if there are also video information do you think that could be viewed by the public and it should be real time, archived to view and have analysis by the public?

Poe: I'm not sure if this is a question but in our definition of information that we have in the government, any information whether it's transcripts, video documents, recordings, drafts that either propose or received by the government is part of the definition of information either video on file that we need and there's a valid reason for it or we have the right to view it.

Espina: So basically Senator, this freedom of information bill will basically make... It will be an open book as in real time open book or does it mean to say that it will only entail certain documents that are absolutely necessary?

Poe: You're right, if it puts in the sunshine in government transactions, so any day it's an open book, subject to the exemptions that are clearly stated. These exemptions are not necessarily our criminal load to FOI. These are exemptions that have been already decided on, either in the Constitution or in legal court proceedings, so we are just re-importing it. Your right as an individual to information matters on the public concerns. If you already signed on our contract, we are just providing clean work on the system, which we can make this information acceptable to the public.

Espina: And eventually Senator, I just have one last question, when will you eventually resume the talks regarding the freedom of information bill? Would the Senate invite interested groups to make their inputs as well? Because I think a lot of people would like to voice out and make their voices be heard regarding this because it concerns a lot of people.

Poe: We appreciate the support. We also appreciate any constructive feedback, but we've conducted several public hearings, where we invited people from different sectors particularly those who have been advocates for it like the Right to Know, Right Now coalition, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Department of Defense, the media, all institutions including the DOJ. We provided fair representation even netizens, and a lot of them have supported this initiative and FOI...

Espina: Just one last question, with the whole PDAF scam, a lot of people are probably also scared that these documents really need to be archived real time to prevent document shredding because a lot of these account could be trashed upon occurrence, so is that part of the law, that this are archived and real time as well?

Poe: Thanks for raising that. In fact, what good is our right to information if we don't have the information accessible? A part of the FOI, which for the prudent record keeping of every department, is to to have back up, published (records), and also to able to upload it in their websites. And then there is also the National Archive regulation that certain documents can never be destroyed for example, with historical evidentiary, cultural or if it is a particular law. There are certain things that have already been categorized and information that needs to be kept by the government.

Espina: Ok, and who would be on top of the situation Senator? Who would make sure that each agency would abide the law considering this is something that will be newly-introduced, and will start a change on the way they upload the documents and make it accessible to the public?

Poe: First of all, right now we have the National Archives that mandates all government agencies to have a minimum requirement of archiving their documents. But second, with this new FOI Law, we will come up with implementing rules and regulations, and part of that is to send them what part of the law is that, and that certain information for example the budget, the expenses, the earnings, the biddings by agencies must be uploaded in full in their websites. There are certain minimum requirements that need to be mapped by the agencies as stipulated and who would be responsible for this? Number one, the head of the agency would be liable if he doesn't comply, and there is a progress report or an actual reporting on the status of the compliance with the FOI that would be evaluated.

Espina: Alright, ok, thank you Senator.

Paras: Senator before you go, I have one more question, as you may know the Senate is on time on this deliberation but it takes two to tango as the saying goes.

Poe: Absolutely.

Paras: So the House, it seems that they are turtle flow, don't you think that there has to be an appeal to the President to certify this as urgent after all and if our facts are right, it was the President who filed an FOI bill a couple of years ago, is there any effort from your end? And if this is certified and the House would also be able to catch up with the Senate in terms of the passage of this proposed bill?

Poe: Being one of the main authors of the FOI, I feel strongly about it and I think that I presented our case even to Malacanang. They have representation in our hearings, but I would always refer to the President if he feels that there are other bills to be certified as urgent, but the importance of public representation and public participation would also make a difference. For example the President may not certify something urgent but with public persistence and public clamor for it, perhaps those in Congress who want to address their constituents will hopefully be motivated to pass it. But at this point there is no certification from Malacanang as to mark this bill as urgent, but I think there is a public clamor for it and hopefully things will speed up in Congress.