DICT: Another White Elephant

Department of Science and Technology Sec. Mario Montejo: "We may no longer need a Department of ICT." 

Source: InterAksyon.com

While Congress is snail-paced in passing the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill, they approved the in a snap of a finger a law that will create another department for information and communications and technology. This department is called Department of Information Communications Technology (DICT). While it was lined up in the agenda of Congress, it did not get the attention of the media and the people themselves. It seems like it was hideously passed and signed into a law by the legislative and executive branches of our government. Now, questions continue to hound the creation of a separate department for ICT. Is it really one of the priorities that our government should be spending money for?

In creating the DICT, it renamed the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) as Department of Transportation (DOT). Coloma as cited by Sabillo (2016) mentioned that some agencies will be abolished and transferred to DICT. The agencies include Information and Communications Technology Office (ICTO), National Computer Center (NCC), National Computer Institute (NCI), Telecommunications Office (TELOF), and National Telecommunications Training Institute (NTTI). The said department is headed by a Secretary which joins the presidential cabinet. It also has 3 undersecretaries and and 4 assistance secretaries. On a positive note, it is good to streamline the functions of government agencies to avoid redundant functions. The agencies mentioned have actually almost similar functions and it should not just be transferred to the DICT but they should be reconsidered.

 

Source: newsflash.org 

Some government officials have have been expressing disappointment with the department’s creation. As cited in a news article written by Helen Macasaet, “we are already doing a lot of ICT in our respective departments and we know what to do. So there really is no need for another department which can just add unnecessarily to the expenses of the government machinery.” This is a common sentiment that I would also like to pose. The ICT work can be done by the Department of Science and Technology or the Department of Transportation and Communication. They have huge ICT work and it only needs centralism. It is not surprising that sentiments like there were vested interests that hound the bill to be passed to easily.

Compared to the DICT, there are a lot of bills in Congress that are collecting dust but they are of great importance. The Freedom of Information Bill that will implement our constitutional rights to FOI. This bill was dilly dallied by Congress during the previous administration until time lapsed and was archived. Groups had been lobbying for the FOI to be a law. It has been a noisy ride but it did not reach its destination unlike the DICT.

For the farmers sector that is still the majority of country’s population, there has not been a law passed that significantly favoring their plights. The Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB) is already more than 10 years in Congress and it is junk every time it is filed. The People’s Mining Bill which was filed in 2010 did not get any merit in the House of Representatives because our leaders do not want to repeal the existing Mining Act which is the Mining Act of 1995. For me, for our country to develop and stand on its own, we need a law like the People’s Mining Bill wherein our mineral resources will not be plundered by big foreign mining firms. These are only few among the tons of significant bills filed which are the concerns of the basic sectors of our country. These laws were however archived or deliberately set aside by landlords and big businessmen who are lording in the Philippine politics.

Interestingly, DICT’s declaration of policy is vague. In the first point, it says, “to recognize the vital role of information and communication in nation building” (R.A. 10844, 2015). It is as if saying that country did not recognize the role of ICT before the enactment of this law. More than recognizing the role of information and communication in nation building, I think it is more important to stress the people’s access to public information which will advance people’s participation in nation building. The first statement alone in the declaration of policy is not a music to my ears and to the ears of many critics of this law.

The purpose of the law is not well articulated in the declaration of policy. After reading the first statement which for me was vague, I was more confused on the next statements. I did not really understood what the law meant by “to ensure the provision of strategic, cost-efficient, citizen-centric information and communications technology (ICT), infrastructure, systems and resources as instruments of good governance and global competitiveness.” Aside from its vagueness, I cannot visualize how the said declaration will be actualized.

After reading all the points in the declaration of policy, I was not convinced that this country that is in poverty and political turmoil needs this department. I cannot stop myself in concluding that the DICT was only created to siphon more money from the peoples coffer. It happened at the National Anti Poverty Commission (NAPC) during the previous administration. Recently, it was found out that NAPC has included in its payroll hundreds of consultants who monthly received a salary ranging from Php 25,000 to Php 500,000. It was a scandal that was only found out recently with the change of administration. The DICT was railroaded by the people who are close to the previous president namely, Herminio Coloma.

I don’t think that our country become globally competitive with the setting up of DICT. I cannot see the logic of having a department that will only focus on what the other departments have been doing as part of their mandate will accelerate nation building. I share the sentiment of the DOST that line agencies have been doing ICT work for quite long and the country is doing fine. I do not see how this department will help in the major problem of the Philippines which poverty and underdevelopment.

When the bill was approved in the Senate during its third and final reading, Senator Drillon mentioned in an article written by Gonzales (2015), “the measure addresses the need for the Philippines to be at par with other ASEAN economies which have cabinet level departments for their information and communications technology (ICT).” The thing is, our leaders see development in an outward manner. What matters to them is how the Philippines gets across other countries. Instead of resolving the dire situation in the domestic that will propel the economy, they pass policies like the DICT to impress regional and international organizations like the ASEAN. Our country cannot afford anymore to spend much money on unnecessary things. We do not need to look good in the outside but rots in the inside. Like the sentiment mentioned in the article written by Macasaet (2012), it says, “We don’t have enough resources to spend in ICT, that’s why we cannot budget much for it. It is too expensive. And our people are not ready to do it. Some just don’t want to take it. There are other more important things to prioritize like food and electricity.”

I would like to point out some of the sentiments in 2012 that I think were not addressed when the law was railroaded in Congress and finally, when it was signed into by former president Benigno Aquino III. Below are the sentiments that I share up until today.

“There are political tones to the DICT creation. There are Cabinet members who do not see eye to eye on several matters and the ICTO will neutralize those people in the Cabinet. What happens is if a DICT is created, it can land on a Cabinet secretary who is presently already so influential with the President. What with another department in his influence?” (Macasaet “DICT: Is it really Necessary for Transformation?”)

“No amount of ICT can eliminate corruption. What we need is just the right leadership and taking out all the corrupt officials and not voting for them again! There are still quite a number of those corrupt officials who just don’t like ICT because they cannot continue with their old ways” (Macasaet “DICT: Is it really Necessary for Transformation?). Moreover, what the government needs to do is empower its manpower on ICT. Putting up a cabinet level department is like putting ICT as one of the country’s pressing concern when in fact, there is only a need to systematize the ICT work without setting up a new department. Putting up a system which will tie all the ICT work of the government units and agencies using the existing manpower and running resources is the smartest thing to do especially in this era where spending less but gaining higher impact is the language.

I would also agree on a sentiment of a fellow Filipino that says, “I think we need help from those countries whose ICT organizations have already proven to be successful like Singapore. Maybe we should get advice from them on how we should structure our ICT department in the Philippines, instead of just creating a DICT right away.” Aside from the fact that it is not one among the priorities of the government, setting up the department right away is shocking. It is like creating a white elephant which is actually a trend in the government projects.

To cite a local example of a white elephant, the huge building called BAPTC which is a concern among the farmers of Benguet because instead of decreasing the farmers’ burden, it has only pressed another burden by adding fees into almost everything. Thus, the old trading post is still preferred. This only shows that farmers are not ready for an advance trading system because their major problem which is the relations of productions is not stripped off. The new trading system, although promising, is not yet fit in their present situation.

It is like the DICT. It is a white elephant because the government invested resources including manpower to it but it is not an appropriate solution to whatever it is that the country is facing.

Moreover, some people do not really care for this law. When they were asked in 2012, they said, they do not care and they wanted to leave the issue on the IT experts. This is one evidence that it is not a mass issue. It is not the concern of majority of the Filipinos. There concern is mostly on what to eat for the next meal and if their rights are being recognized.

Contemplating on the passing of the DICT into a law leads me into a suspicion that the law is all about business. When this bill was still being lobbied in Congress, the support came mostly from the private sector. It seems that the business sector sees a lot of opportunity in tying up with the government on ICT related investments. Today, the appointed secretary who sets in the President’s cabinet is a former executive of Globe Telecommunications. Now, it is crystal clear that the smooth passage of the law is a “business as usual.” What is now the assurance that our information and communications technology will not be controlled by corporations? I can sense a brewing deregulation of one of the government’s service which is communications.

I want to reiterate that what the government needs to look into is the snail paced Freedom of Information Bill not a law that uses the peoples’ coffer in advancing the interests of business institutions.

Works Cited

Gonzales, Yuji. “Senate OKs bill creating ICT department.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2 Jun. 2015. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

Macasaet, Helen. “DICT: Is it really necessary for PH transformation?” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

Philippine Congress. “Republic Act No. 10844. An Act Creating the Department of Information and Communications Technology, Defining its Powers and Functions Appropriating Therefor, and other Purposes.” Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, 23 May 2016. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

Sabillo, Kristine Angeli. “Dep’t of Information and Communications Technology created.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 23 May 2016. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

Somosot, Janice. “5 Things To Know About the DICT Act Of 2015 Signed Into Law By President Aquino.” Times, 24 May 2016. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

Curtailing the Freedom of Information

Source: asianjournal.com 

On July 23, 2016, the newly elected president of the Republic of the Philippines signed an Executive Order implementing the freedom of information across the executive branch of the government. This is one of the shining moments of Duterte as he assumed post. The former president Benigno Aquino III in his six (6) years in power did not lift a pen in advancing one of the crucial pillars of democracy, the freedom of information.

The Power of Access

Mendoza (2015) mentioned in an article that access to information in the experience of the Philippines has helped greatly in filing graft and corruption cases against two presidents and one Supreme Court Chief Justice. Policies compelling access to public documents has revealed several cases of graft and corruption committed by public officials. The mandatory yearly declaration public officials’ assets and liabilities has sealed some of the leaks for corruption.

Peoples’ access to public records especially when it comes to the use of the peoples’ money and transactions that government and its leaders enter empowers the people by becoming part of the check and balance. It gives them the power to make public officials accountable for their wrongdoing. On the other hand, access can also mean danger. People’s power of access can endanger a nation and its citizens if system is not in place.

What is lacking in the Philippines with access

Some people would brush off the idea of having a specific law on the freedom of information. This is because the country has several policies on access to information. We have the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which compels public officials to disclose all their assets. Mendoza (2015) mentioned that in 1989, Congress passed a law that allowed the public to have copies of the declared assets and liabilities public officials.

Moreover, peoples’ right to access public documents is enshrined in the Philippine Constitution even way back 1973. It was only polished in the 1987 Constitution after the toppling of the Marcos dictatorship.

In the code of ethics of government officials, it mandates public servants for full disclosure policy. Aside from their assets and liabilities, it compels every unit of government to be transparent on all transactions including budget and project documents. In fact in every transaction, there are processes to be undertaken like the bidding and all. The processes should also be made public. In local government units and agencies, they are regularly posting their budget and where it was used.  

At the international arena, the Philippines seems to be in good standing when it comes to freedom of information.

What is then the need for the Freedom of Information Act? The Bill has been filed In the Sixteenth Congress but it only reached an approval on the 3rd Reading by the Senate and the Congress ended. What is with the snail-paced movement in Congress on the FOI if this is really one of the pillars of democracy? Are the policies enough that Philippines does not need a separate implementation of our Constitutional right to freedom of information?

The Access to Information at Work

Every Filipino citizen has the constitutional right to access public documents that do not endanger its international relations and may not harm innocent people. This is enshrined at the Section 7 of Article III or the Bill of Rights. However, on the grounds, it has been difficult to access information from the government offices. Even the media practitioners still need insiders to be able to access information that are of public interest.

With several policies on access to information and disclosure, it has been a culture that government authorities validate the use of information and the integrity of a person who is accessing the information. In the Constitution, the bias should be for the bonafide citizens who are accessing information. It should not be the other way around. The government authorities are required to disclose information at all times when requested unless there is a compelling reason not to.

On the other hand, the full disclosure policy has been crucial making records available for the public. These records which are of importance include government transactions and budget. Yes, it is true that people can now see documents posted in government offices. Budgets are disclosed, bidding process of projects and purchase of equipment are posted. The problem with the system is that, documents posted cannot be understood by people who do not have background on accounting or legislation. In this case, they should not expect that citizens who do not have tertiary diplomas to understand.

There is also a problem in the monitoring process on transparency. In a monitoring process where this writer was a part of the monitoring team, the government tool was shallow. The questionnaire only delve on whether or not the LGU or the government agency has posted religiously important information on their bulletin boards. Supposedly, the principle of transparency is having the information available for the public. When you say information, it should be translated in a way that everybody can understand what the document is saying.

Moreover, when bulletin boards are not enough, government units and agencies should be using barangay assemblies and municipal assemblies to bring information down to the people. In this manner, documents are properly explained in layman’s terms so that everybody understands. It is only when people understood the information that it can help empower them in order to participate. It is only when people participated in promoting transparency that the principle of transparency is achieved. Religious posting of budget line, expenditures, projects and other transactions are meaningless when it cannot get across to its expected audience.

One of the reasons of the Senate in playing dilly-dally on the FOI Bill is a premise that we have enough policies. In actual however, the policies have no fangs. There have not been any government authority to be filed a case on not allowing access to information when in fact, not a single day, a citizen is denied access to public public documents. The FOI Bill compels government authorities to respond to request for access. They can be filed raps when they failed to respond to the request or deny request without any grounds.

In Indonesia, a government authority can be jailed for one year or can be fined of up to five million rupiah for not responding immediately to a request for access especially when the public record is highly needed by a citizen and that it may jeopardize his/her life when denied access of a certain public record.

Setting up of FOI system

Perhaps, Congress is not pushing the Bill forward because of a system to be implemented once the law is passed. In the FOI Bill, a system is needed to be in place for public records to be easily available online and in electronic format. This system is needed to hasten processes. Information that need the approval for access are only those that are confidential.

If the worry of Congress is the backfire of the law by endangering the nation when documents go in the hands of evil minds, there is an important section in the Bill that defines what and what not to be made available to the public. In Section 6 of the FOI Bill, there are 10 items that detailed the exemptions on the public access. One of the exemptions is information that would compromise the internal and external defense, law enforcement, and border control.

With the detailed exemptions, the FOI Bill is actually not so free. The exemptions are rigid. One example is the letter d) of Section 6 that states: “The information requested consists of drafts of orders, resolutions, decisions, memoranda or audit reports by any executive, administrative, regulatory, constitutional, judicial or quasi-judicial body in the exercise of their regulatory, audit and adjudicatory function” (3). There should not be a reason then to dilly-dally the proposed bill.

The Need for the FOI Law

As a constitutional right, it should have an implementing power like other constitutional rights. The policies available on transparency, and accountability are but supplements. There should be a law that has the ability to punish the violators. Yes, it is true that Filipinos need only to invoke their freedom of information because it is already reflected on policies but in cases where government authorities violates the rights of the citizens, are the available policies enough when victims want to file raps?

It is laudable that President Duterte signed an Executive Order implementing the freedom of information across the executive branch. As cited by Almario (2016) the Presidential Communications secretary mentioned: “I surmise that the public will understand that after 29 years of fighting to strengthen this freedom of information, and to strengthen the right to information … Only 25 days as President Rody Duterte -- this is already a record-breaking speed of a cornerstone, a milestone, or a landmark executive order being signed.”

Indeed, it is a milestone in the history of asserting the FOI. This leap forward should be used in investigating how the peoples’ money was managed by the executives in the past administration. It should also be used in keeping an eye on the transactions of local executives.

As a case in point, the people of Kalinga especially those affected with Chevron’s geothermal power project application were not aware of the transactions that the provincial governor and the mayors are getting into. There are rumors spreading that the governor has already given the green light to Chevron despite the strong opposition on the ground. Communities opposed to the project lose hope with this kind of information. This is because there of the lack of transparency. Governor Baac and Chevron in 2012 signed a Memorandum of understanding that people did not know of. With the Executive Order signed by President Duterte, people on the ground should be aware of all the transaction so that they will have the basis to lobby or hold their leaders accountable if they do not represent the voices of the people they should be serving. With the case above, it cannot be discounted that abuses of power related to graft and corruption exists even with the existence of several policies that advances transparency and accountability.

In indigenous communities in the Cordillera that are swarmed by development projects including extractives, the freedom of information is needed not only in the executive branch of the government. As per experience, community folk in Kalinga for example are repeatedly deceived by authorities by not disclosing enough information when it comes to the development projects. Even in the processes of the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), there are misinformation which is leading the community to an unfavorable situation. People are often divided because of the misinformation. The company and the government agency facilitating, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) are only sharing the positive effects of the project. Most of the time, the NCIP spread false accusations against the opposition that they are communist or something like that to discredit their position.

The power of true information that should be shared by the government agency empowers the people to make a sound decision. I think this should be the role of the NCIP in facilitating the FPIC processes. They should ensure that indigenous communities understood very well the project. All information both good and bad should be tackled in a way that indigenous community can grasp. If the FOI Bill becomes a law, it can compel government agencies like the NCIP to tell the truth and only but the truth. It will compel them to disclose all transactions that they enter especially with the corporations. Indigenous communities will surely rejoice if there is a law that they can use to make the NCIP officials accountable with their manipulation of peoples’ decision making process by not disclosing the truth.

Lastly, it is saddening that one of the pillars of democracy which is already enshrined in the Constitution cannot be implemented well because the House of Representatives are snail pacing it. It cannot be denied that the government officials who are dragging the pace of the FOI bill have their own self interests. Previously, there were reports that government leaders from the poorest provinces in the country are one of the richest. Well, the freedom of information is in the Constitution to protect the people from the abuse of the government.

Works Cited

Alimario, Anjo. “President Duterte Finally signs FOI.” CNN Philippines Website, 25 Jul. 2016. Web. 25 Sept. 2016.

Bagayaua-Mendoza, Gemma. “Why the Philippines needs a freedom of information law.” Rappler, 4 Aug. 2015. Web. 25 Sept. 2016.

Official Gazette. “Proposed 2013 Freedom of Information Bill.” Official Gazette Website. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.