The outgoing Congress had not passed the Freedom of Information Act.
Apologists say that there was not enough time as they were busy canvassing Presidential and Vice Presidential votes.
Other apologists say that there was no quorum.
However there were those who say that there was quorum but Congress would not touch the bill.
The latter reason is more believable.
There were Congressmen who reason out the if such law is passed, certain government processes might be delayed, seriously hampered or stopped because everyone could just go and demand information on sensitive matters.
Since we do not know how the bill is worded, we could only speculate.
There is information, which must be kept confidential; there are those which must be open to all.
Since information is almost always the basis for action and those actions may prove disadvantageous or determinant to the concerned, those involving national security, vital business and industrial interests and some of personal importance may not be open to the public.
However, information concerning public interest and welfare must always be open.
Actions of public officials and public servants must be open to scrutiny of taxpayers.
Legalists say that freedom of information is guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution.
Framers of the fundamental law of the law must have in mind information involving public interest.
However, there is no law, which penalizes those who withhold the required records hence the need for Freedom of Information law.
Information could be an asset or a liability.
Publicizing good doing is good public relations.
Since such information generates goodwill, which could be quantified without running afoul of the law, such doing could be aired.
Public Relations Officers are hired to project good image.
On the other hand adverse information could be detrimental or at the worst fatal.
Since this could break persons or groups to which such person belongs, incriminating information must be kept secret by those involved.
Persons interested on such knowledge may be honest to goodness media practitioners with public interest in mind or blackmailing newsmen and politicians of the opposition.
Publicizing such information is an open invitation to a charge of libel.
However, since libel is hard to prove and the courts are bent on decriminalizing libel, erring public officials and servants try to cover up their doings by refusing information.
To counter this, Congress is contemplating or perhaps passed the Right of Reply law.
This raised the hackles of publishers and editors in chief.
If the reply will be printed on the page selling spaghetti and this news is a paid press release perhaps media bigwigs would not object.
Since the law insists that the answer to bad information will be printed on the relatively same location where the incriminating information was placed important news-papering policies would be violated causing loss of revenue...
It is certainly hoped that the Aquino Congress would pass the Right of Information law.
Only wrongdoers are concerned with hiding their tracks.
The good ones seek outright publicity.
Since it is the public, which pays for their services, the public has the right to know what they are doing.
Or perhaps we are electing wrong lawmakers who are bent on protecting their interests.