FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives on Tuesday failed anew in tackling the Freedom of Information Bill.
This was despite Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr.’s assurance to FOI Bill authors that it would be included in the agenda.
Session was suspended around 5:20 p.m. without the FOI Bill being tackled.
Deputy Speaker Lorenzo Tanada III said Davao del Sur Representative Marc Douglas Cagas insisted on raising a parochial issue and he could not object as the lack of quorum was apparent.
Cagas, he said, insisted that he did not want a Republic Act which referred to Davao Occidental be read and archived.
“Mukhang walang quorum kanina (It seems there’s no quorum earlier). I would have objected,” said Tanada who said he did not know whether Cagas was an opponent of the FOI Bill.
He said many of the lawmakers supporting the measure approached Cagas to no avail.
The two session days in which the measure was not introduced scrapped more from the limited time left for Congress to pass it before the campaign period starts.
Tanada has earlier said they remained optimistic despite the limited time they had to see the bill’s approval. He said that they would continue to push for the FOI Bill to be discussed Wednesday.
He said that the only way to stop Cagas from delaying the introduction of the measure was to reach a quorum on Wednesday. This time would be “crucial” and that not being sponsored by then would be bad news for the FOI Bill.
He has earlier said that FOI Bill authors were given assurance by Belmonte that text messages would be sent to remind House members to attend session.
He said that lawmakers also needed to be present for the possible ratification of bills on Marcos Victims Compensation and the K-12. “These need positive action from both chambers hence, there would be messages sent for the need of quorum.”
Eastern Samar Representative Ben Evardone, chairman of the House committee on public information, earlier called for a caucus on the bill but Tanada said that “at this point, it’s difficult to call a caucus.”
“But if he could do it, we will comply if it would be called. But we would continue the sponsorship and defense of the bill,” he said.
Akbayan Representative Walden Bello said that what they expected from Evardone was a “vigorous defense” for the FOI Bill, vowing to provide the committee chairman “moral support.”
As committee chairman, Evardone has the responsibility of sponsoring and defending the FOI Bill at the plenary. Tanada said that they could not impose on but vowed to be “waiting in the wings” in case his help was needed.
The period of sponsorship is up for its first day at session but Tanada said that they would have to look into expediting the process by just submitting written sponsorship speeches so that they could move to interpellations.
Despite the withdrawal of co-authorship and support from the Makabayan bloc, the FOI Bill enjoys the support of majority of the partylist groups in the lower chamber, according to Bello and Diwa Partylist Representative Emmeline Aglipay.
“Two and a half months ago, we got the support of 117 House members in just two days’ time. Given more time, we could have found more,” Bello said.
In fact, “no one in his right mind will say that they are against the FOI Bill,” said Tanada who explained that doing so would be akin to “going against oath of office.”
“We won’t see anyone totally against it, question is can they accept the version being pushed,” he asked.
This was exactly the issue Bayan Muna Representative Teddy Casino had with the bill when he withdrew his co-authorship of the bill on Monday, along with the withdrawal of support of six other militant legislators. They questioned the version being pushed at the House, saying that it had too many exceptions and allowed the Executive branch to withhold certain information.
But Bello defended the bill, saying that it in fact struck a balance between pushing for transparency and ensuring that national security was not placed in jeopardy “especially during a time when we are treading precarious grounds with respect to certain countries.”
The Akbayan lawmaker said that the right-of-reply provision was not as contentious as it was being made to look, pointing out that “very few, note even five” want the said provision included in the bill. “Let’s not make the ROR such a big issue. As far as we know, it is only the concern of very few members.”
“Let’s have the interpellations so we can fine tune even further and meet their concerns,” said Bello.