MANILA, Philippines -- The bicameral conference has approved the proposed Freedom of Information Act, moving a step closer to providing citizens with an enabling law that gives flesh to their right enshrined in the Constitution 23 years ago to have easy access to information being held by the government.

All the bicameral members — three senators and eight members of the House of Representatives — signed the reconciled version of the bill late Friday.

Quezon Rep. Lorenzo R. Tañada, chair of the House committee on human rights, said on Sunday the bicameral report should be ready for ratification by both chambers Monday afternoon.

Congress has only three session days left before it takes a three-month break for the election campaign.

Tañada said he ``has high expectations that both the Senate and the House will deliver a piece of legislation that has been enshrined in the Constitution but has been wanting of an enabling law - the right of citizens to access to information on matters of public concern.’’

He said Speaker Prospero Nograles had identified the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill as among his priority measures when he took over the helm as Speaker.

``It is incumbent upon him to now ensure its ratification. As a matter of course, both the House and the Senate should act on any bicam report that is already submitted. After that, the ball shifts to Malacañang," Tañada added.

The Senate passed Senate Bill No. 3308, the chamber’s version of the measure, only last December, while the House approved its counterpart measure (House Bill 3732) on May 12, 2008.

If signed into law, the act would make available to the people all public records in print, sound or visual form.

The act mandates all government agencies to upload all contracts or transactions on the web, prompting Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, principal author of SB 3308, to say that this would lessen corruption endemic in the bureaucracy.

“Corruption is one of the country's biggest problems and challenges. Many lose hope not because corruption remains hidden but because despite knowing the instances of graft, few, if any, get prosecuted, said Cayetano, chair of the Senate committee on public information and mass media.

He said the lack of a paper trail and difficulty of producing evidence enough for conviction have been among the reasons why corruption has thrived in government.

``Even the more experienced graft investigators and investigative journalists most of the time produce bits and pieces of evidence,” he said.

Cayetano, a lawyer, said the proposed act could be a game-changer.

``A paradigm shift fought for by the advocates for transparency and accountability, FOI will empower all Filipinos to be graft busters, or Sherlock Holmes' assistants!” he said.

The act would make paper trail easily accessible in all government agencies and provide for the criminal prosecution of those who refusing to release data or information, he said.

Cayetano said the act would encourage people to monitor the mandatory posting on the web of items most associated with graft like procurement of contracts and waiver of rights.

“The FOI will also further strengthen the Philippine media by empowering and boosting research into government dealings,” said the senator.

The act mandates government agencies to make available to the public “scrutiny, copying and reproduction, all information pertaining to official acts, transactions as well as government research data used as basis for policy development regardless of their physical form or format in which they are contained and by whom they were made.”

Besides upholding the right of the people to information, FOI also promotes the state policy of “full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest” as enshrined in Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) and Article 3, Section 7 (Bill of Rights).

If the government agency decides to deny the request, in whole or in part, it shall within seven days from the receipt of the request, notify the person making the request of such denial in writing or through electronic means.

Denial of access to information shall be appealable to the agency concerned 15 days from the notice of denial, but the Office of the Ombudsman can be asked to resolve the appeal in 60 days.

A penalty of no less than one month but not more than six months awaits those who would violate the propose legislation.

The bill sets out clearly defined and reasonable exceptions, including matters dealing with national defense and security, ongoing foreign affairs negotiations, trade secrets, drafts of executive orders and personal information.

Access to information may be denied on the following grounds:

* When the information has been deemed confidental under the guidelines established by an executive order;

* When information’s confidentiality is crucial to defense and law enforcement; legitimate military or police operations; prevention, detection or suppression of a criminal activity; protection of confidential or protected sources or witnesses, law enforcement and military personnel or their immediate families.

* When information pertains to the personal information of a person;

* When information requested pertains to trade, industrial, financial or commercial secrets of a natural or juridical person other than the requesting party.

* When information is obtained in legal proceedings, which are privileged;

* When information is obtained by Congress in executive sessions;

* When the release of information to public would impair the impartiality of verdicts or obstruct the administration of justice.

To prevent government agencies from abusing these exceptions, officials would be required to specify the public interest sought to be protected by the non-disclosure of information.

The bill recognizes the legal presumption in favor of access to information.

Requesters have the opportunity to show that the public interest in the disclosure outweighs the harm to the public interest sought to be prevented by the exceptions.

Fourth, any public officer or employee claiming an exception under the act faces criminal liability if it is shown that the claim is manifestly devoid of factual basis.