Can the Philippines under Marcos finally pass an FOI bill?

2026-03-23 - 23:40

Six months since President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. included a Freedom of Information (FOI) bill in his legislative agenda, the long-lobbied measure has made significant strides in Congress. The proposed Right to Information (RTI) Act cleared the committee level at the House of Representatives, while the People’s FOI Act passed the Senate on second reading in mid-March, just before lawmakers began a two-month leave. An FOI bill has been stuck in the legislative mill for more than three decades already. It was not even included in Marcos’ list of pet bills until recently. Do he and his allies have the political will to finish a job that their predecessors couldn’t? Why the bill matters The last time the Philippines came close to passing the measure was in 2010, when the House and the Senate approved the FOI bill yet failed to ratify the conference committee report before the 14th Congress halted operations. In 2016, then-president Rodrigo Duterte signed his own FOI executive order, which seemed trailblazing. However, the long list of exceptions, such as executive privilege and national security, became a convenient excuse for government agencies to reject requests for supposedly sensitive data, such as the President’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). Passing a law on FOI matters because an executive order just doesn’t have enough legal teeth. It does not cover the legislative and the judiciary, and only has administrative sanctions at best for noncompliant heads of executive agencies. Play Video The House version In the lower chamber, the unnumbered substitute bill on FOI seeks the creation of a Right to Information Commission, an oversight body that will regulate public access to government information. “Establishing that RTI Commission creates a proper mechanism because there is an actual organization behind it. It’s not just a law on paper, there is a dedicated commission to handle it. They will serve as the arbiter for the various agencies,” committee vice chairman and technical working group chairman Brian Yamsuan told Rappler, adding that Right to Information officers would have plantilla positions with security of tenure. The Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition (R2KRN), the largest network campaigning for the FOI law, welcomes the committee’s approval of the bill, calling it a “a meaningful step in a reform effort that has taken many years.” R2KRN co-convenor Eirene Aguila said 85% of several civil society inputs were reflected in the current draft. Other provisions in the present version include timeline for access and proactive disclosure. Public information committee chairman Lordan Suan said the bill introduces a standard system for requesting information. Government agencies would be required to respond within three to seven days for regular requests, and up to 20 days for more complex documents. Requests are presumed approved unless they fall under specific exemptions. According to Aguila, the bill also states that exceptions must be “strictly and narrowly construed,” and that confidentiality clauses in contracts cannot be used to block access unless they fall within the law’s defined exemptions. “These are important gains, and they show that sustained engagement still matters,” she said. The House public information committee has yet to release a copy of the approved substitute bill, but a fact sheet that Suan’s office provided to Rappler states that agencies would be required to “proactively publish key information of public interest.” It is unclear what documents these are, but Suan describes this as a “paradigm shift,” where “the government is the one volunteering information instead of the other way around.” The Senate version has a similar provision, listing more than a dozen types of documents that government agencies must publish. Graphics by Nico Villarete/Rappler Senate version, SALN provision The Senate and the House versions appear to have a number of striking differences. The Senate bill, for instance, does not seek to create an independent commission, entrusting the handling of remedies to existing structures, such as the next higher office, or the court. The Senate version is also more straightforward when it comes to public access to government officials’ SALN. Those required to publish their SALNs annually include the President, the Vice President, senators and House lawmakers, Cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, military officers, and members of constitutional commissions. This is an important provision because the present Ombudsman memo that mandates publication of SALNs does not cover the legislative branch. Despite heightened calls for transparency, less than 20 out of more than 300 lawmakers in the House have voluntarily declared their net worth publicly. Play Video The House bill has yet to unveil its exact policy on SALNs, but the wording won’t be unlike the Senate’s. Suan and Yamsuan said disclosure would depend on the policies of each agency, with final details to be set in the implementing rules and regulations. The House version also includes a provision that allows oversight bodies such as the Commission on Audit, Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and the Ombudsman, to access information even if it would normally be restricted. This is a crucial provision for the CHR, which previously encountered roadblocks accessing documents related to Duterte’s drug war. The committee kept that line despite reservations raised by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, which said the provision could run in conflict with existing confidentiality laws. The Senate version, meanwhile, lacks a provision that overrides access restrictions to information specifically authorized to be kept confidential under existing laws. What’s next When Congress resumes session in May, the substitute FOI bill will have to be assessed by the appropriations committee before it is elevated to the plenary. It will then be up to the rules committee, chaired by the President’s son and Majority Leader Sandro Marcos, to include the measure in the order of business. Congressman Suan said he hopes the proposal will move quickly through this stage after months of technical working group discussions. “Because of the recent clamor for transparency and accountability, which I think every Filipino is asking for during these times, the bill was prioritized by the President,” Suan told Rappler. If it passes the second and third reading, a contentious battle looms in the bicameral conference, where the House and Senate must reconcile their clashing versions. President Marcos, in the first half of his presidency, was far from being an FOI champion. Less than a year into his term, Malacañang expanded the list of exceptions to what the public could access under Duterte’s FOI executive order. His inclusion of an FOI bill on his list of pet bills in September 2025 came amid growing public outcry over government corruption, which the public works corruption fiasco triggered. Months later, Malacañang also asked Congress to prioritize the passage of an anti-dynasty bill, although present developments indicate that the prevailing version in the House is one that is watered-down and can actually further entrench political families. The Legislative Executive Development Council set a June 2026 deadline to pass the measure. It remains to be seen whether the administration’s FOI push is legitimate or just another attempt to gain PR points. Attorney Aguila of R2KRN stressed that the fight for a “strong, principled, and genuinely pro-people” FOI bill remains unfinished despite the apparent momentum in Congress. “An FOI law should not be performative,” Aguila said. “It must be a law that ordinary citizens, communities, journalists, researchers, and watchdogs can actually use to demand answers from government.” – Rappler.com Jia Erikah Fajardo is a journalism student at Colegio de San Juan de Letran-Manila and the features editor of its official student publication The LANCE. She is currently a Rappler intern.