Palace now cites Charter in not making FOI bill urgent

After claiming that the proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) law may endanger government operations, Malacañang on Saturday cited a provision of the 1987 Constitution as another reason for President Benigno Aquino III’s decision not to certify the bill as urgent. “The president is very cautious about exercising this privilege," deputy presidential spokeswoman Abigail Valte said, adding that while the 1987 Constitution allows the president to certify a bill as urgent, there are “limited" instances where this applies. “Kung di public calamity or emergency, gusto ng pangulo [If what is involved is not a public calamity or emergency, the president wants] to exercise restraint and judiciousness in exercising that privilege," Valte said on government-run dzRB radio. Valte, a lawyer, explained that the Constitution has “very limited instances where the president is given the privilege of certifying a bill as urgent." She cited Article VI, Section 26 of the Constitution, where the president can certify a bill as urgent. Under the provision, “No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal." Earlier, Malacañang had expressed concern that some provisions of the FOI bill may hinder or endanger government operations. Presidential Communications Operations Office head Herminio Coloma Jr. listed the Palace’s reservations in a four-page statement, which was sent to the House public information committee on November 9 but was released to media only on Wednesday. (See: Malacañang flip-flops on Freedom of Info bill) “There is a need to balance the broader right advocated by the bills with ensuring that government operations will not be paralyzed by gratuitous requests for information," he said. He expressed concern on the provisions that granted access to information that government decision-makers or project managers are currently using, and also provisions on the frequency of access to such information. “The intention is not to hide information or to limit the frequency of access but only to ensure that government operations are not hampered," Coloma said. Also, he was concerned with giving access to transcripts and minutes of official meetings, which may diminish candid and open discussions by public officers.—JV, GMANews.TV