House fails to vote on FOI bill
Eastern Samar Representative Ben Evardone. FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — Unresolved issues punctuated the second hearing by the House of Representatives on the controversial Freedom of Information Bill for the year led to the lawmakers’ failure to vote on it.
Eastern Samar Representative Ben Evardone, chairman of the committee on public information, halted motions by Akbayan Partylist Representative Walden Bello and Cagayan de Oro Representative Rufus Rodriguez for voting to begin.
“Unfortunately, we have run out of time,” said Nueva Ecija Representative Antonino at around 4 p.m. He said that they were violating rules of the lower chamber of Congress by continuing discussions beyond their schedule.
Session starts at 4 p.m. at the House but lawmakers inside the conference room refused to leave without voting.
Evardone, however, insisted that discussions on the FOI be continued at another time due to contentious issues which remained unresolved to which several lawmakers angrily questioned what happened to motions to vote on the FOI Bill. He insisted that lawmakers were expected to be present at the plenary during session.
The hearing was adjourned for November 27.
Even from the start of the hearing, Evardone said that they had several unresolved issues from their first hearing way back in March.
But issues on the 15 bills and the Malacanang’s recommendations consolidated into one version by a technical working group led by Deputy Speaker Lorenzo Tanada III consumed most of the hearing.
Antonino and Zambales Representative Mitos Magsaysay quizzed Tanada over what they viewed as a substitute bill crafted by the Malacanang, questioning him about recommendations made by Undersecretary Manolo Quezon III.
Antonino asked why, when he filed his version of the FOI Bill with a provision on public officials’ right of reply, was Malacanang’s inputs considered when his version of the bill was sent back to the mother committee. “Why wasn’t I given a chance to argue my case before the TWG? Malacanang was given their day?”
Bello intervened and asked Antonino to instead argue his case with the mother committee.
Antonino, however, insisted on answers before the committee could go through further debates on the FOI Bill.
He further insisted on notes that Tanada “voluntarily” crafted on the consolidated second version of the FOI Bill without asking for inputs from other lawmakers.
“We were hoping that you asked us first through a committee hearing before you included Malacañang. It’s unfair na hindi niyo tinanong ang input ng iba [that you didn’t ask the inputs of others],” said Magsaysay.
Tañada told the committee then that Malacañang recommended points for the free flow and exchange of ideas in Cabinet discussions, mandatory posting on the web of salns, and the issue on national security.
The deputy speaker said that controversial issues, particularly Antonino’s provision on the right of reply, were thrown back to the mother committee to decide on as the TWG had finished its work. He said that the ROR provision was something for the mother committee to decide on.
“Maybe the crux of the problem was that the committee failed to call for a hearing,” said Tañada.
“How can we take cognizance of Representative Antonino’s bill when the committee did not call for a hearing,” he said.
Tañada argued that it was difficult for him to take cognizance of Antonino’s bill since the mother committee did not bring it to his attention.
Evardone said that the FOI was so contentious that he “could not ram it down stakeholders’ throats.”
“I can assume responsibility for not calling a hearing because the committee was waiting for comments on the contentious issues,” he reasoned.
