By Herman M. Lagon

There are moments in policy-making when something long delayed finally feels within reach. The Senate’s 22-0 vote recently approving the proposed People’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Act on third and final reading is one of those. It is not loud or dramatic. No grand celebrations, no overwhelming noise online. But for those who have followed this for years, it carries weight. After decades of stalled efforts, the possibility of finally putting FOI into law feels less like reform and more like something we should have fixed a long time ago.

For many of us, the idea of a “right to information” can feel distant. But it shows up in ordinary situations. A parent asking why a classroom still lacks chairs despite an approved budget. A contractor trying to understand how bidding decisions are made. A citizen wanting to see the actual process flow of a government service — something ARTA has long pushed agencies to make clear, but which still often feels confusing on the ground. A community checking if a flood control project is truly aboveboard — and truly finished, not another “ghost” on paper. Someone asking to see the SALN of a public servant, simply to understand if what is declared matches how one lives. A teacher checking if funds for materials actually reached the school.

When information is accessible, these questions become clearer — and harder to ignore. And over time, that changes behavior.

We are not starting from zero. Under President Aquino, transparency was pushed through executive action, even without a full FOI law. Agencies were encouraged to open records and respond to requests. It was uneven, yes, but it set an important tone: that government information is not private property. Later efforts, including Executive Order No. 2, continued this, though mostly within the executive branch. What the current bill tries to do is make that expectation more consistent — and more binding.

The practical effects matter. Making SALNs easier to access, opening up procurement records, and allowing the public to track where funds actually go — these are not minor tweaks. In a country where questions about infrastructure spending and flood control projects keep coming back, access like this is not just helpful. It matters. It gives people a clearer way to see, to ask and to hold systems to account. It allows people to follow the trail — not through rumors, but through records.

There is also a quieter benefit. Transparency tends to make systems work better. When processes are visible, people tend to be more careful. Decisions are better documented. Delays become easier to spot. This is why FOI is not just about rights — it is also about how institutions perform.

I have seen this in small ways. Through FOI.gov.ph, I filed requests on policy updates and on a cultural exchange visa concern. Nothing extraordinary, just work-related questions. But the process itself mattered. It clarified things. It reduced guesswork. It made coordination easier. It showed how access to information, even in simple cases, can make work smoother.

Globally, many countries have gone this route. The UK, India, Indonesia — each has its own version of FOI or RTI laws. None of them are perfect. Delays happen. Some requests are denied. But the overall direction is clear: where information flows more freely, governance tends to improve. Even the United Nations treats access to information as part of democratic participation.

Still, no law fixes everything. FOI will not suddenly eliminate corruption or inefficiency. Systems resist change. Habits take time to shift. The real test is not the law itself, but how it is practiced — how quickly requests are answered, how honestly records are kept, how consistently rules are applied.

There is also a need for balance. Some information must remain protected — national security, privacy, sensitive matters. Good FOI laws recognize this. The goal is not to expose everything, but to make openness the default where it is safe and appropriate.

For those of us in education, the idea feels familiar. We ask students to show their work, to explain their answers, to cite their sources. We value not just the result, but the process. Governance should not be any different. Decisions should be traceable, not perfect, but understandable.

The Senate’s approval is not the final step. The measure still needs to move through the House and the usual process. But something has shifted. The conversation is no longer about whether transparency matters. It is about how to make it part of the system.

And maybe that is where we pause — not to celebrate too early, but to think about what this asks of us. Transparency is not always comfortable. It exposes not only wrongdoing, but also inefficiency and mistakes. But that discomfort is part of accountability.

The bill is not just about documents or access. It is about trust. In a space where public confidence often rises and falls quickly, having a steady way of seeing and understanding matters. FOI does not promise perfection. It simply makes it possible to ask better questions — and sometimes, that is where real change begins.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with./WDJ