City FOI ordinances on right track, says councilor

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

Iloilo City Councilor Sedfrey Cabaluna, chairperson of the Sangguniang Panlungsod’s Committee on Communication and Public Information, said the two pending freedom of information (FOI) ordinances are moving in the “right direction.”

The committee held its first hearing on November 27 to discuss the separate FOI proposals filed by Councilors Sheen Marie Mabilog and Jose Maria Dela Llana.

Cabaluna told the media on December 3, after the council’s regular session, that both proponents were open to reconciling their respective ordinances based on his suggestions.

He said the committee had identified and resolved similar provisions in both proposals, though he did not detail which ones.

“What we did during that committee hearing was basically read through the salient provisions of both ordinances, and what we were able to resolve early were the similarities,” Cabaluna said.

However, seven provisions remained unresolved. These include the process for retrieving requested information, ordinance coverage and exemptions, anonymous requests, and the appeals process.

“We asked them to submit their position as to why they prefer their version over the other, and we will tackle the differences in the next hearing. I believe they also committed to sit down and try to resolve the differences between the two versions themselves,” he added.

Cabaluna welcomed the presence of two differing proposals on a common subject, noting that both authors expressed willingness to address conflicting provisions collaboratively.

“The proposal of Councilor Dela Llana remains the same, as submitted, but the proposal of Councilor Mabilog was amended. When we had a committee hearing, they adopted something almost similar to the Dela Llana version. We already identified what needed to be resolved,” he said.

COMPARISONS

A Daily Guardian analysis of the two ordinances, first introduced during regular sessions on October 15 (Mabilog) and October 22 (Dela Llana), found 15 notable differences across various sections, from the short title to funding provisions.

Dela Llana’s version includes detailed procedures for evaluating and deciding on requests — provisions not found in Mabilog’s draft.

On the other hand, Mabilog’s version clearly allocates funding for FOI-related training, information dissemination, and the development of a digital FOI portal.

In contrast, Dela Llana’s version only states that funds shall be provided to “appropriate offices” for implementation.

 

DISCLOSURE, EXEMPTION PROVISIONS

Both versions mandate continued compliance with Department of the Interior and Local Government Memorandum Circular No. 2024-021, which outlines the revised implementing rules for the Full Disclosure Policy and FDP Portal.

Key differences were also noted in the scope of automatic disclosures — government information that must be made public without the need for an FOI request.

Mabilog’s version includes seven disclosure categories, while Dela Llana’s lists 21, categorized into annual and quarterly disclosures.

 

There are also variances in the number of exemptions — information that may be withheld from disclosure.

Dela Llana’s version identifies 13 categories of exempted information, compared to Mabilog’s seven.

However, both versions share several common exemptions. These include matters of national security, executive privilege, law enforcement and investigations, legally protected confidential information, personal privacy, draft documents and negotiations, confidential proceedings, and a general clause for other lawful exemptions.