Miriam on POGI bill: Can gov't afford printing 1.8M SALNs a year?

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

Santiago asked whether it is even possible for the government to print the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALNs) of close to 1.8 million government workers.

This came as Santiago 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," including SALNs of public officers of the government agency.

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

Santiago noted that statistics from the Civil Service Commission showed that there are 1.8 million estimated number of government personnel as of the 2nd quarter of 2010.

“Would the yearly publication, printing and dissemination of all their SALNs administratively and/or financially feasible?” Santiago asked.

Santiago also wondered how to interpret Section 25 that repeals Memorandum Circular No. 78, which provides for the classification of information in government offices.

“Would this leave sensitive information unprotected until such time that the President can issue the executive order…,” she asked.

Instead, Santiago argued 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a period to issue the executive order mentioned under section 7(A) after which Memorandum Circular No. 78 is deemed repealed.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,” she warned.

Earlier, Santiago discussed issues whether Congress can limit the powers of the President on executive privilege and then differentiate 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,” Santiago noted.

“The presidential communications privilege is a form of executive privilege and is rooted in the separation of powers,” she added.

Santiago added 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,” Santiago explained.