Miriam questions provisions of POGI bill on SALNs

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago has expressed her renewed reservation on some provisions of the People’s Ownership of Government Information (POGI) bill, the Senate’s version of the Freedom of Information Act.

Santiago was wondering whether it is even possible for the government to print the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) of close to 1.8 million government workers.

The lady senator noted Section 8(C)(5) that “requires each government agency to regularly publish, print and disseminate, at no cost to the public and in accessible form, and through their website, updated information. The information included SALNs of public officers of the government agency.

“Is this administratively and/or financially feasible?” she asked Sen. Gregorio Honasan, chairman of the Senate committee on public information and mass media during her interpellation on the measure.

Santiago noted statistics from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) that there are at least 1.8 million government personnel as of the second quarter of 2010.

“Would the yearly publication, printing and dissemination of all their SALNs be administratively and/or financially feasible?” she asked, wondering how to interpret Section 25 that repeals Memorandum Circular No. 78, which provides for the classification of information in government offices.

She also inquired if sensitive information would be unprotected until such time that the President can issue the executive order, arguing that the law should give the President a period to issue the executive order mentioned under section 7(A) after which Memorandum Circular No. 78 is deemed repealed.

“Otherwise, there might be a period when sensitive information would be unprotected,” Santiago warned.

Earlier, the senator from Iloilo discussed whether Congress can limit the powers of the President on executive privilege and then differentiated executive privilege from deliberative process privilege.

“Under the presidential communications privilege, the President cannot be compelled to reveal facts or deliberative material even after a decision has been made. The presidential communications privilege is a form of executive privilege and is rooted in the separation of powers,” she said.

Santiago also emphasized that since the presidential communications privilege is rooted in the separation of powers, “it is arguable that Congress cannot remove or limit it without violating the Constitution.”

“If Congress is doing away with the privilege as an exception to the right to information, it would arguably be unconstitutional if the privilege is rooted in the Constitution. If it is not so rooted, it may be wiser to maintain the privilege to prevent premature disclosure of decisions and to preserve the quality of decision-making,” she explained.