by KAROL ILAGAN

This special report on access to information on ODA projects was written by PCIJ researcher-writer Karol Ilagan. It tells of the various ways by which government agencies heed – or altogether ignore – legitimate requests for public documents, despite persistent avowals of official commitment to transparency and accountability in the public service.

THE PUBLIC'S right to information is expressly guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution and affirmed by the judiciary. Yet access to data held by state agencies not only remains limited, it has become nil in some cases, apparently because of the current Senate scrutiny of particular government projects.

In fact, based on the recent experience of the PCIJ, agencies that had previously been accommodating of requests for information have suddenly shut their doors on such.

One stark example is the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), which last year initially granted PCIJ’s various requests for data regarding projects using official development assistance (ODA). But after Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita issued a memorandum order last September 28 restricting the release of specific national broadband network (NBN) documents to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, as well as to media agencies, NEDA stopped processing requests for information connected to the project.

As of this writing, NEDA even plans to draft new guidelines for the release of project documents, a move that could further curb information access.

SLIDING BACK?
Which is sad, says veteran journalist and occasional PCIJ fellow Roel R. Landingin. Before scandals involving state projects began erupting late last year, he says, the government seemed headed toward transparency. At the very least, advances in technology had been enabling agencies to increase transparency in their dealings and make more data available online.

“One hundred percent access, NEDA used to be like that,” Landingin says. “Perhaps, because of the intensity of attacks (on the President), access to information has been restricted.”

	Table 1: Summary of Requests Made by PCIJ No. of agencies written to 15 No. of requests made 23 No. of calls made 190 No. of letters sent 46 No. of referrals made by agencies 74 No. of requests denied 8 No. of requests approved 15

Nepomuceno Malaluan, lawyer and Access to Information Network (ATIN) co-convenor, says that when an agency withholds the information, it is probably to protect certain public officers from embarrassment, or from criminal or administrative liability. Landingin, the Manila senior correspondent of The Financial Times of London, adds that “some agencies are covering their backs.”

Landingin wrote the latest PCIJ series on ODA projects. Apart from interviews, his report was based largely on a six-month review of official documents that covered 71 of these projects. This meant gathering various ODA project documents such as copies of contracts, memoranda of agreement, feasibility studies, cost-benefit studies, presentation materials, status reports, and other related materials. This also meant submitting official requests for data and documents from various government agencies.

The PCIJ research team kept a log of request approvals and denials from July to December 2007, during the data-gathering work for the story. The PCIJ also recorded the number of phone calls made, letters sent by fax and e-mail, and the number of employees the researchers had spoken with or and were referred to.