Freedom of Information (Philippine Executive Order No. 2, s. 2016)

Freedom of Information (Philippine Executive Order No. 2, s. 2016)
Name	Executive Order No. 2, s. 2016
Title	Freedom of Information
Issued by	Benigno Aquino III? No—issued by Rodrigo Duterte
Date signed	2016-07-23
Jurisdiction	Philippines
Type	Executive order

Freedom of Information (Philippine Executive Order No. 2, s. 2016) Executive Order No. 2, s. 2016 established an administrative policy on access to information within the Office of the President (Philippines), the Philippine executive branch, and affiliated agencies following calls for openness from civil society groups such as Transparency International and Article 19. The order emerged amid debates involving figures like Benigno Aquino III supporters, critics linked to Rodrigo Duterte's administration, and advocates from organizations including Human Rights Watch and the Open Government Partnership.

Background and Legal Framework

The EO built on legal precedents such as the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, administrative issuances like Administrative Order No. 1 (Philippines), and comparative models from jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Sweden. Influences included international instruments featured by United Nations bodies, recommendations from the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, and litigative pressure from NGOs like Reporters Without Borders and the Free Legal Assistance Group. Political vectors included engagements with legislators from the Senate of the Philippines, House of Representatives of the Philippines, and campaigns by personalities including Leila de Lima and Kiko Pangilinan advocating statutory FOI.

Provisions of Executive Order No. 2 (s. 2016)

Key provisions designate procedures for information requests to the Office of the President (Philippines), specify response timelines similar to standards in the Freedom of Information Act (United States), and require proactive disclosure via portals inspired by platforms used by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The order prescribes format, fees, and appeal mechanisms analogous to protocols from the Access to Information Act (Canada), and assigns responsibility to officials comparable in rank to department secretaries and heads of bodies like the Department of Finance (Philippines) and the Department of Budget and Management.

Implementation and Administrative Mechanisms

Implementation established units within offices such as the Presidential Communications Operations Office and coordination with agencies like the Civil Service Commission (Philippines), the National Economic and Development Authority, and the Commission on Audit. Administrative tools included an online portal modeled on systems used by the European Union and technical guidance from UN agencies like the United Nations Development Programme. Training and capacity building referenced partners including Ateneo de Manila University, University of the Philippines, and international donor programs linked to the Asian Development Bank.

Scope, Exceptions, and Limitations

The EO delineated exceptions rooted in statutes like the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 context and doctrines referenced in cases before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, carving out exemptions for material involving the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, and intelligence units analogous to controversies in the CIA and MI5. Limitations addressed privacy rights under principles found in rulings by the European Court of Human Rights and norms advanced by organizations such as the International Bar Association and Privacy International.

Compliance, Monitoring, and Enforcement

Monitoring responsibilities were assigned to offices including the Office of the Presidential Communications Operations and coordination with oversight bodies like the Commission on Audit (Philippines) and the Civil Service Commission (Philippines). Compliance mechanisms referenced administrative sanctions comparable to those in statutes enforced by the Ombudsman of the Philippines and guidance from intergovernmental initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership. Civil society oversight involved actors like Bulatlat, Vera Files, and Rappler pursuing transparency through requests and strategic litigation before the Court of Appeals of the Philippines.

Impact and Reception

Reception ranged from praise by transparency advocates including Transparency International and academics from De La Salle University and Ateneo de Manila University to critiques from political figures in the Senate of the Philippines and media commentators at outlets such as Philippine Daily Inquirer and Manila Bulletin. Empirical assessments cited usage statistics comparable to evaluations by the World Bank and case studies cited by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International while journalists from ABS-CBN and GMA Network reported on high-profile requests involving agencies like the Department of Health (Philippines) and Department of Education (Philippines).

Related Policy Developments and Amendments

Subsequent developments included proposed legislation such as the Freedom of Information Bill (Philippines), debates in the House Committee on Good Government and the Senate Committee on Public Information and Mass Media, and related issuances under later administrations including directives from Rodrigo Duterte's successors and executive guidance from the Presidential Communications Office. International linkage occurred through dialogues with the Open Government Partnership and technical assistance from entities like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the World Bank.

Category:Philippine executive orders Category:Freedom of information laws