Right to information within reach

Last Tuesday, I personally sponsored the Right to Information Bill in plenary. This was the first bill I filed as a congressman, so you can imagine how proud I was to sponsor it on the floor and how thrilled I was to see the House of Representatives come together to support its passage on second reading.

For nearly four decades, the Philippines has recognized the people’s right to information as a constitutional guarantee. Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides that citizens have the right to information on matters of public concern, including access to official records, documents and government research data, subject to limitations provided by law. Despite that mandate, the country still does not have a comprehensive national statute that fully explains how ordinary citizens can exercise that right in practice.

That gap is what the Right to Information Bill seeks to address.

Many versions of Freedom of Information or Right to Information legislation have been filed across different Congresses. Some reached committee approval. Others advanced to plenary debate. A few came close. Yet the Philippines has remained without a permanent, nationwide framework for public access to government-held information.

This time is different.

The House of Representatives has approved House Bill 9397, or the proposed Right to Information Act, on second reading. The Senate, for its part, has already approved Senate Bill 1432, the proposed People’s Freedom of Information Act, on third and final reading. With both chambers now having acted on their respective measures, Congress is closer than it has ever been to sending a final Right to Information law to the President.

The next major step will be the bicameral conference committee, where the two versions can be reconciled. That process will matter because the two bills share the same general objective, but differ in several important details.

The House version focuses strongly on creating a clear system for implementation. It establishes a Right to Information Commission that can help oversee compliance, receive appeals and ensure that agencies follow the law. It also strengthens proactive disclosure, meaning government agencies would be required to publish certain information even before a formal request is made. This is important because access to information should not depend entirely on whether a citizen knows how to draft, file and follow up a request.

The Senate version also expands access to official records, documents and government research data. It covers the executive, legislative and judicial branches, constitutional bodies, local government units, government-owned and controlled corporations, government instrumentalities and state universities and colleges. It also requires the online publication of certain statements of assets, liabilities and net worth by high-ranking officials, along with documents involving public interest such as budget expenditures, procurement plans, bidding contracts, debts and contracts worth at least P50 million.

At the same time, the Senate version identifies exemptions for information classified as confidential by law, including matters involving national security and defense, law enforcement, foreign affairs, presidential communications privilege and executive sessions of Congress. These issues will likely form part of the bicameral discussions, especially in determining how to protect legitimate confidential information without making the exceptions so broad that they weaken the general rule of transparency.

That is the central balance Congress must strike. The law must be strong enough to give citizens meaningful access to information, but precise enough to protect privacy, security and other legitimate public interests. The debate is no longer about whether Filipinos have a right to know. The Constitution settled that question in 1987. The remaining task is to build a system that makes that right usable.

The international experience shows why this matters.

UNESCO reports that 139 UN member-states have adopted constitutional, statutory or policy guarantees for public access to information. This shows that access to information is now widely recognized as a basic requirement of accountable governance. Countries with different legal traditions and levels of development have adopted transparency systems because public trust cannot be sustained when government information is difficult to verify.

Mexico is often cited as one of the stronger examples. Its freedom of information reforms expanded public access to government records and spending information, allowing citizens, journalists, researchers and civil society groups to monitor government activity more effectively. Thailand also shows how access-to-information mechanisms can help communities obtain records on land rights, environmental issues and official decision-making.

These examples do not mean that transparency laws automatically eliminate corruption, inefficiency or abuse. They do not. But they give citizens tools. They make it harder for public information to remain hidden without justification. They allow people to check claims, examine spending, study contracts and participate in public affairs using official records rather than rumor.

That is especially important today. The information environment has changed dramatically since the first FOI proposals were filed. Filipinos now receive information from social media platforms, messaging applications, online personalities, artificial intelligence tools and traditional news organizations all at the same time. Information moves faster than ever, but not everything that moves quickly is accurate.

In this environment, a Right to Information law is not just a transparency measure. It is also a practical response to misinformation. When citizens can access verified records directly from public institutions, they are better equipped to distinguish facts from speculation and official data from fabricated claims.

After decades of delay, the Philippines is now closer than ever to passing a national Right to Information law. The House has acted. The Senate has acted. The remaining work is to reconcile the two versions and deliver a final measure that is clear, enforceable and useful to ordinary Filipinos.

For the first time in years, the finish line is in sight.