The Philippine Online Chronicles

Tyranny may change in form, adapting to the milieu in which it must be deployed and exercised, but it never changes in principle. In the olden days, a naked display of power – an army of mercenaries or soldiers – is enough to subdue an uncooperative populace. The tyrant commands through the monopoly of instruments that physically coerce - instruments of hurt, instruments of pain. The constant principle is that the tyrant gets what she wants, no matter the opinion of those whom she rules. This is the very antithesis of democracy.

Today, while the old brand of tyranny can and is still wielded in certain parts of the archipelago, a veneer of civility must cloak ‘naked’ exercise of power. A nominal observance of civilized, 21^st century political governance limits those would resort to brutal force. New technologies of tyranny are a postmodern adaptation. In an era where information is power, information withheld is but a means to deprive transparency and to maintain absolute control.

Withholding information critical to the interest of the governed severs links of accountability to those who do govern. The democratic exercise does not begin and end in periodic elections. We do not choose leaders only to leave it up to them to decide matters of state. The democratic assumption is that the ordinary citizen has as much as to say about the public condition as those who have been voted to power. The substance of our democratic exercise lies in participation. That the citizenry have a say-so in matters pertaining to the interest of all Filipinos. That we resort to an open discussion to debate the merits and demerits of a piece of legislation or a national policy. This is often a messy and an arduously slow process. But it is a small price to pay to safeguard our democratic principles.

Executive Privilege. Done right and in proper context, it prevents the compromise of domestic policies and safeguards state secrets vis-à-vis foreign entities. Done wrong, it degenerates into whims of princes and kings. Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the Executive Privilege of Malacañang, preventing party-list groups and other civil society organizations from obtaining a full copy of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).

JPEPA is an historic bilateral trade agreement, the first of its kind in Philippine history. It cuts a wide swathe – trade in goods and services, investments, matters on intellectual property, mobility of human resources, among others. Without a doubt, it is an important agreement which will impact the economic, even the social well-being of many. It also serves as a legal precedent to future EPAs the country might enter. Critics claim the Philippines, on balance, seemed to have gotten the short end of the stick. Japan gets to dump toxic materials in our country. Filipino nurses who wish to work in Japan, under JPEPA’s provisions, might have been unduly disadvantaged. Some provisions on rules, regulations and implementation of the treaty may violate the constitution. If, indeed, there is substance to the claims of critics, we shall never know. For the details of the JPEPA, the negotiations of stakeholders, the negotiating texts, and certainly the processes employed to arrive at the agreement never became publicly known until JPEPA became fait accompli.

Oh, and of course, who’s to forget the ZTE-NBN deal? In the investigations following allegations of graft and corruption, the Palace invoked executive privilege, preventing key government officials from being questioned by Congress. By withholding the testimony of these officials, by withholding information from the general public, the governors withheld the public’s right to know.

Enshrined in our Bill of Rights is our right to know - “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 limitations as may be provided by law.”

The public’s access to information critical to public interest is a necessary precondition of any functioning democratic polity. Our ability to discern, our ability to make decisions pertaining to matters which impact our individual lives, the entire nation and even the generations to come are contingent on having access to these information.

The Freedom of Information Bill would seek to make the public’s right to know a guaranteed right. Today, at the tail-end the 14^th Congress, our lawmakers make a decision on whether to ratify this landmark piece of legislation. Fourteen years in the making, the FOI bill made it through the arduous legislative process, having been passed by the upper and lower house and the bicameral committee. Today the House decides whether to ratify the bill to be transmitted to the Office of the President for signature.

Today the People decide whether those in power may continue to hide behind the cloak of executive privilege and bureaucratic foot-dragging. I say, let us shine the light in those nooks and crannies where tyrannical privileges roost and hide. Ratify the Freedom of Information bill now!