Soldier turned legislator Gary Alejano’s concerns on the BBL

Rep. Gary Alejano interpellating during the deliberations on BBL.

Rep. Gary Alejano interpellating during the deliberations on BBL.

No one was surprised that the Supreme Court junked the petition questioning the legality of the Bangsamoro Basic Law which was still being deliberated by both chambers of Congress when it adjourned sine die last June 11.

The BBL missed its timetable of the Senate and House of Representatives passing it by June 11.

Supporters of the legislation which promises lasting peace for Muslim Filipinos and the country are hopeful that the resumption of the deliberations on the bill after President Aquino’s last State of the Nation Address on July 17 would lead to bill’s eventual passage into a law.

When that time comes, more groups will be questioning it before the Supreme Court.

Before the adjournment of the House of Representatives, Magdalo Representative Gary Alejano raised valid issues during the interpellation of Antipolo Rep. Romeo Acop, one of the vice chairs Hoc Committee on the Bangsamoro Basic Law.

Alejano, who was detained for seven years for his participation in what is known as the Oakwood Mutiny” was a captain in the Philippine Marines. He spent most of his tours of duty in Bangsamoro areas like Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Basilan, and Sulu.

In short, he has seen realities on the ground.

“The issue of peace process is very sensitive to me because it is the ordinary soldiers and ordinary Filipinos who suffer in this long-drawn war in Mindanao, Pilipino laban sa Pilipino. It is, therefore, our advocacy in Magdalo to find solutions for a lasting peace in Mindanao,” Alejano said.

Alejano is a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Bangsamoro Basic Law; Special Committee on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity; and of the Committee on National Defense and Security.

Alejano raised five concerns on the BBL bill that they were deliberating on:

First, compelling reasons why Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao has to be abolished;

Second, the questionable role of Malaysia as mediator to the GPH-MILF peace process;

Third, the trustworthiness of the group that the government is negotiating with, in this case, the MILF;

Fourth, the negotiation, per se, in the events leading up to the signing of the peace agreements;

Fifth, the arrangement that would be implemented after the signing of House Bill No. 5811 into law.

Due to space constraints, I’ll focus on Alejano’s concern about the role of Malaysia in the negotiation considering that the Philippines and Malaysia have unresolved territorial claims over Sabah.

Alejano said it was the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, with whom the government is engaged in a peace process with the BBL as implementing legislation that wanted Malaysia as the broker.

Here’s a portion of Alejano’s interpellation:

“As far as I remember, it is not the government of the Republic of the Philippines who requested for Malaysia. It was MILF. The government of the Republic of the Philippines would have wanted other countries, neutral, independent, disinterested, because we know that we have a standing claim to Sabah. But because the MILF insisted for Malaysia, the government gave in.

“Malaysia’s role is inherently questionable for being in a state of conflict of interest. Political support for rebel movements disqualifies one from becoming an intermediary or intercessor for rebels who come to the negotiating table. The fact is that it was Malaysia who, through the decades, supported, trained and gave sanctuary to rebel leaders and the rebel movement in Mindanao. It was the Malaysian government who funded, trained and provided sanctuary to the MNLF since its inception, to the detriment of the Filipino people, until rebel groups signed a peace agreement with the government.

“It is a known fact that aside from being a supply and communication center for Moro rebels in the ‘60s and ‘70s, Malaysia regularly held paramilitary training for these rebels in Sabah. This was government-sponsored. When the MILF suffered heavy losses in combat, MILF leaders such as Sheikh Salamat Hashim would seek refuge in Malaysia and under the Malaysian government’s support. Adding to an already clear conflict of interest is that Malaysia is very much aware of the Philippines’ standing claim to Sabah. Malaysia’s claim is diametrically opposed to the interest of the Philippine government. When Misuari and MNLF pledged support to the Sultanate of Sulu in claiming back Sabah, it is interesting to see that Malaysia dropped all the support to MNLF.

“Aside from the MNLF, the Sultanate of Sulu was sidelined as well in the GPH-MILF peace talks. It would not be too remote to say that Malaysian support to the MILF was in exchange for the latter to drop or stay silent on the Sabah claim.”

Alejano’s concern has found basis in the self-abasing attitude of the Aquino government to Malaysia.

Last March, Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman arrogantly said there is no Philippine claim on Sabah when asked for his reaction on VERA Files story on the proposal of the Aquino government to withdraw a 2009 protest to Malaysia on Sabah in exchange for a declaration related to Spratlys that would bolster Philippine case against China.

Anifah said, “Is there a claim? We have never recognised any claim (by the Philippines on Sabah.)”

The Aquino government did not protest Anifah’s arrogant statement.

The Sultan of Sulu, citizens of the Philippines, has title over huge part of timber and mineral rich Sabah, formerly North Borneo, which covers 22 percent of the Malaysia total area.

Amina Razul, whose family is a member of the Sultanate of Sulu said they have been receiving more than 50 years from the Malaysian government “5,000 ringgit (P62,600) a month.”

Bongbong & BBL: Father-son act?

By Cong B. Corrales

REMEMBER thy father’s mistakes, do right by the Moro people.

This, according to supporters of the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), are lessons that Sen. Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. might do well to remember before thrashing the BBL.

proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), according to the leader of the
“Tandaan po natin, ang pamilya Marcos, ang tatay ni Senator Bongbong Marcos, siya po ang pinagmulan ng puno’t-dulong gulo, lalong-lalo na po sa Mindanao,” said Aga Khan Sharieff, chairman of the Bangsamoro National Movement for Peace and Development, at a recent press briefing. [Let us not forget that it was the Marcos family, the father of Senator Bongbong Marcos, who started the conflict in Mindanao.]

A political advertisement featuring the young Marcos had repeatedly aired on national television. In it, he stated his opposition to the proposed law and announced his plan to draft a new version of the bill.

Earlier, Marcos, who chairs the Senate committee on local government, had said that he would rather amend Republic Act No. 6734 or the Organic Act to establish the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, rather than pass the BBL.

Sharieff, who is also known as “Sheik Bin Laden” because of his long beard, is also the lead convenor of Anti-Bugok or Anti-Bungangero at Utak Pulburang Pulitiko. The phrase translates to “Against Looudmouth and Trigger-Happy Politicians”.

PCIJ tried to reach Marcos on Monday for comment but his staff said the senator was attending a hearing on the case of a student who allegedly committed suicide after being berated by his teacher.

Meanwhile, Yhang Macusang, spokesperson of the Anak Mindanao (AMIN) Partylist group, said that instead of blocking the passage of BBL, Marcos would do well to take this chance to make amends with the Bangsamoro people.

“Panahon na po upang bumawi kayo (Marcos) sa mga mamamayang Moro. Kayo (Marcos) po sana ang magtuwid ng mali ng nakaraan. Ngunit tila yata tama ang kasabihang: Kung ano ang puno ay siya ang bunga,” Macusang said. [It's high time for the Marcoses to do good by the Moro people. The Marcoses should correct the mistakes of the past. However, it seems like the saying is true: A tree bears fruit in its own image and likeness.]

“He (Marcos) must lead the restitution for the victims of the Jabidah massacre, Manlili massacre, and the countless victims of enforced disappearance, torture and warrantless arrests,” the group said in a statement read by Abdul Malik, program director of Bawgbug Center for Human Rights and Peace.

The group said that if Marcos really wants peace in Mindanao, he should “stop his shameless use of the issue of the BBL for his political campaign ads.”

For her part, lawyer Mary Ann Arnado, secretary general of Mindanao People’s Caucus, said that the BBL is a product of 17 years of negotiations and hundreds of consultations. According to her, Marcos’s plan to draft his own version of the bill is an insult to the thousands of people who have devoted their time and effort in the drafting of the BBL.

“Wala na pong ibang mas makagagawa ng Bangsamoro Basic Law liban po sa mga Bangsamoro,” said Arnado. [No other group but the Bangsamoro people must raft their own Bangsamoro Basic Law.]

“At kung si Bongbong Marcos ay gagawa na kanyang basic law, sa kanya ‘yan. Bongbong Law ‘yan at hinding-hindi ‘yan magiging Bangsamoro Basic Law,” Amado added. [If Bongbong Marcos will draft his basic law, then that's his own. That could only be a Bongbong law, and never a Bangsamoro Basic Law.] – PCIJ, June 2015

‘FOI deserves high priority’

THE House of Representatives should not waste a day longer and act with dispatch on the Freedom of Information bill.

In fact, what the House needs to do at this time, with Congress set to go on recess on June 4, is to put the FOI bill on top priority, according to the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition of about 160 civil society organizations and leaders.

High prioritization of the FOI bill could mean a few, easy things that President Aquino, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., and other House leaders could do — “a high-level meeting, a phone call, adoption of a clear timetable, clearing-up of hold-ups and delays, mention at the State of the Nation Address, the President certifying to the necessity of immediate enactment, and ultimately, the House leadership putting the bill on the plenary agenda and mobilizing key legislators to move the process forward.”

What follows is the full text of the Coalition’s statement:

FOI Losing Time, High
Prioritization Essential

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION Chairperson Jorge T. Almonte and House FOI champions and authors were scheduled to file the Committee Report on the FOI Bill with the Secretary General of the House of Representative last Wednesday, May 20, at 3:30 pm.

However, at around 2 pm, Chair Almonte felt compelled to postpone the event, anticipating that the final vote on the BBL happening that afternoon will take longer than earlier expected. He was set to vote on the BBL, along with a number of FOI authors who are members, ex-officio members, or deputized members of the House Ad Hoc Committee on the Bangsamoro Basic Law.

We hope that the postponed filing of the Committee Report on the FOI Bill will happen at the soonest. The filing of the report is significant. It marks the shift of the FOI Bill from the committee level to the even more challenging work at the plenary level.

In spite of the advance of the FOI bill signified by the filing of the Committee Report, we lost important time. The last three weeks since the resumption of session on May 4, and early next week when the BBL goes through approval by the Committee on Appropriations, would have been an opportunity to start sponsorship and interpellation of the FOI bill in plenary.

The Need for High Prioritization

This brings to light the importance of a measure being given high prioritization by the leadership of Congress and by the President. The impact of high prioritization on how a measure moves in Congress, particularly for major, controversial or resisted bills like FOI, is all too clear. We saw it in RH, in Sin Tax, and now in BBL.

We attest to the hard work at the committee level of Chair Almonte, FOI authors and champion legislators and their staff, as well as of the advocates in getting the bill through the committee process. We attest to the responsiveness of the Committee on Appropriations and its Chairperson, Rep. Isidro Ungab, in the prompt approval of the appropriations provision of the bill. We also attest to the committed and untiring support from the staff of the committee secretariat. (See legislative history of the FOI bill at the committee level in 16th Congress below).

However, this is where high prioritization spells the difference. To be sure certain steps could have been speeded up if the passage of FOI is given high priority, similar to the bills we mentioned earlier.

Especially at this critical juncture when we approach the third and final regular session in a Presidential election year, the FOI bill cannot be just one of numerous priorities. It will take a very high level of prioritization and leadership if it is to finally pass.

By observation, we are all familiar with the many mechanisms by which a high level of prioritization is conveyed: a high-level meeting, a phone call, adoption of a clear timetable, clearing-up of hold-ups and delays, mention at the State of the Nation Address, the President certifying to the necessity of immediate enactment, and ultimately, the House leadership putting the bill on the plenary agenda and mobilizing key legislators to move the process forward.

The coalition sees it as a challenge for itself and concerned citizens to demonstrate a compelling strength to move our leaders to place the passage of the FOI Bill high in their priorities, as much as we see it as a matter of accountability and question of leadership for the highest leaders of this country.

FOI Tracker Rating Drops

In our FOI Tracker # 1 assessing Congress action on FOI, we said that the bill was well positioned for passage, and in the Green Zone with a rating of 85.

With the delay and anticipating that the BBL will reach plenary given its prioritization, our appeal for the completion of sponsorship and start of interpellation before the June 11 adjournment has turned difficult. Given this, the rating drops by 20 points to 65, and moves to the Yellow Zone. The FOI Tracker may be viewed at http://www.i-foi.org

Legislative History of the FOI Bill at the Committee Level in the 16th Congress

October 23, 2013, Committee organizational meeting, where a motion to create a Technical Working Group (TWG) to consolidate the FOI bills was approved

November 26, 2013,The TWG was constituted

February 6, 2014, TWG Meeting # 1

February 18, 2014, TWG Meeting # 2

March 10, 2014, TWG Meeting # 3

May 12, 2014, TWG Meeting # 4

May 19, 2014, TWG Meeting # 5

May 28, 2014, TWG Meeting # 6

June 9, 2014, TWG Meeting # 7

August 4, 2014, TWG Meeting # 8

September 2, 2014, TWG Meeting # 9, Approval of Substitute Bill

November 24, 2014, Committee Approval of the Substitute Bill
Voting: Nine (9) Yes: Reps. Abad, Aglipay-Villar, Baguilat, Bataoil, Bello, Dalog, Ferriol-Pascual, Gutierrez, Lobregat, Paquiz; Three (3) No: Reps. Colmenares, Romualdo, Tinio

November 25, 2014, Referral to the Committee on Appropriations for approval of the appropriations provision of the Substitute Bill

March 4, 2015, Approval of the appropriations provision, with amendment, by the Committee on Appropriations

March 24, 2015, Certification of Committee on Appropriations action received by the Committee on Public Information

May 14, 2015, Committee Secretariat receives back the documentation of the Committee Report from the 4-step administrative approval by the Committee Affairs Department of the House Secretariat, through the Service Director, Deputy Executive Director, Executive Director and the Deputy Secretary General for Committee Affairs

May 19, 2015, Committee Report signed by Rep. Isidro Ungab on the part of the Committee on Appropriations. Rep. Jorge Almonte, FOI authors and champions agree to a group filing of the Committee Report on May 20, 2015 at 3:30 pm, upon signing of the committee report by Rep. Jorge Almonte on the part of the Committee on Public Information

May 20, 2015, Scheduled group filing of the Committee Report with the Secretary General postponed.

‘FOI deserves high priority’

THE House of Representatives should not waste a day longer and act with dispatch on the Freedom of Information bill.

In fact, what the House needs to do at this time, with Congress set to go on recess on June 4, is to put the FOI bill on top priority, according to the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition of about 160 civil society organizations and leaders.

High prioritization of the FOI bill could mean a few, easy things that President Aquino, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., and other House leaders could do — “a high-level meeting, a phone call, adoption of a clear timetable, clearing-up of hold-ups and delays, mention at the State of the Nation Address, the President certifying to the necessity of immediate enactment, and ultimately, the House leadership putting the bill on the plenary agenda and mobilizing key legislators to move the process forward.”

What follows is the full text of the Coalition’s statement:

FOI Losing Time, High
Prioritization Essential

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION Chairperson Jorge T. Almonte and House FOI champions and authors were scheduled to file the Committee Report on the FOI Bill with the Secretary General of the House of Representative last Wednesday, May 20, at 3:30 pm.

However, at around 2 pm, Chair Almonte felt compelled to postpone the event, anticipating that the final vote on the BBL happening that afternoon will take longer than earlier expected. He was set to vote on the BBL, along with a number of FOI authors who are members, ex-officio members, or deputized members of the House Ad Hoc Committee on the Bangsamoro Basic Law.

We hope that the postponed filing of the Committee Report on the FOI Bill will happen at the soonest. The filing of the report is significant. It marks the shift of the FOI Bill from the committee level to the even more challenging work at the plenary level.

In spite of the advance of the FOI bill signified by the filing of the Committee Report, we lost important time. The last three weeks since the resumption of session on May 4, and early next week when the BBL goes through approval by the Committee on Appropriations, would have been an opportunity to start sponsorship and interpellation of the FOI bill in plenary.

The Need for High Prioritization

This brings to light the importance of a measure being given high prioritization by the leadership of Congress and by the President. The impact of high prioritization on how a measure moves in Congress, particularly for major, controversial or resisted bills like FOI, is all too clear. We saw it in RH, in Sin Tax, and now in BBL.

We attest to the hard work at the committee level of Chair Almonte, FOI authors and champion legislators and their staff, as well as of the advocates in getting the bill through the committee process. We attest to the responsiveness of the Committee on Appropriations and its Chairperson, Rep. Isidro Ungab, in the prompt approval of the appropriations provision of the bill. We also attest to the committed and untiring support from the staff of the committee secretariat. (See legislative history of the FOI bill at the committee level in 16th Congress below).

However, this is where high prioritization spells the difference. To be sure certain steps could have been speeded up if the passage of FOI is given high priority, similar to the bills we mentioned earlier.

Especially at this critical juncture when we approach the third and final regular session in a Presidential election year, the FOI bill cannot be just one of numerous priorities. It will take a very high level of prioritization and leadership if it is to finally pass.

By observation, we are all familiar with the many mechanisms by which a high level of prioritization is conveyed: a high-level meeting, a phone call, adoption of a clear timetable, clearing-up of hold-ups and delays, mention at the State of the Nation Address, the President certifying to the necessity of immediate enactment, and ultimately, the House leadership putting the bill on the plenary agenda and mobilizing key legislators to move the process forward.

The coalition sees it as a challenge for itself and concerned citizens to demonstrate a compelling strength to move our leaders to place the passage of the FOI Bill high in their priorities, as much as we see it as a matter of accountability and question of leadership for the highest leaders of this country.

FOI Tracker Rating Drops

In our FOI Tracker # 1 assessing Congress action on FOI, we said that the bill was well positioned for passage, and in the Green Zone with a rating of 85.

With the delay and anticipating that the BBL will reach plenary given its prioritization, our appeal for the completion of sponsorship and start of interpellation before the June 11 adjournment has turned difficult. Given this, the rating drops by 20 points to 65, and moves to the Yellow Zone. The FOI Tracker may be viewed at http://www.i-foi.org

Legislative History of the FOI Bill at the Committee Level in the 16th Congress

October 23, 2013, Committee organizational meeting, where a motion to create a Technical Working Group (TWG) to consolidate the FOI bills was approved

November 26, 2013,The TWG was constituted

February 6, 2014, TWG Meeting # 1

February 18, 2014, TWG Meeting # 2

March 10, 2014, TWG Meeting # 3

May 12, 2014, TWG Meeting # 4

May 19, 2014, TWG Meeting # 5

May 28, 2014, TWG Meeting # 6

June 9, 2014, TWG Meeting # 7

August 4, 2014, TWG Meeting # 8

September 2, 2014, TWG Meeting # 9, Approval of Substitute Bill

November 24, 2014, Committee Approval of the Substitute Bill
Voting: Nine (9) Yes: Reps. Abad, Aglipay-Villar, Baguilat, Bataoil, Bello, Dalog, Ferriol-Pascual, Gutierrez, Lobregat, Paquiz; Three (3) No: Reps. Colmenares, Romualdo, Tinio

November 25, 2014, Referral to the Committee on Appropriations for approval of the appropriations provision of the Substitute Bill

March 4, 2015, Approval of the appropriations provision, with amendment, by the Committee on Appropriations

March 24, 2015, Certification of Committee on Appropriations action received by the Committee on Public Information

May 14, 2015, Committee Secretariat receives back the documentation of the Committee Report from the 4-step administrative approval by the Committee Affairs Department of the House Secretariat, through the Service Director, Deputy Executive Director, Executive Director and the Deputy Secretary General for Committee Affairs

May 19, 2015, Committee Report signed by Rep. Isidro Ungab on the part of the Committee on Appropriations. Rep. Jorge Almonte, FOI authors and champions agree to a group filing of the Committee Report on May 20, 2015 at 3:30 pm, upon signing of the committee report by Rep. Jorge Almonte on the part of the Committee on Public Information

May 20, 2015, Scheduled group filing of the Committee Report with the Secretary General postponed.

‘FOI deserves high priority’

THE House of Representatives should not waste a day longer and act with dispatch on the Freedom of Information bill.

In fact, what the House needs to do at this time, with Congress set to go on recess on June 4, is to put the FOI bill on top priority, according to the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition of about 160 civil society organizations and leaders.

High prioritization of the FOI bill could mean a few, easy things that President Aquino, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., and other House leaders could do — “a high-level meeting, a phone call, adoption of a clear timetable, clearing-up of hold-ups and delays, mention at the State of the Nation Address, the President certifying to the necessity of immediate enactment, and ultimately, the House leadership putting the bill on the plenary agenda and mobilizing key legislators to move the process forward.”

What follows is the full text of the Coalition’s statement:

FOI Losing Time, High
Prioritization Essential

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION Chairperson Jorge T. Almonte and House FOI champions and authors were scheduled to file the Committee Report on the FOI Bill with the Secretary General of the House of Representative last Wednesday, May 20, at 3:30 pm.

However, at around 2 pm, Chair Almonte felt compelled to postpone the event, anticipating that the final vote on the BBL happening that afternoon will take longer than earlier expected. He was set to vote on the BBL, along with a number of FOI authors who are members, ex-officio members, or deputized members of the House Ad Hoc Committee on the Bangsamoro Basic Law.

We hope that the postponed filing of the Committee Report on the FOI Bill will happen at the soonest. The filing of the report is significant. It marks the shift of the FOI Bill from the committee level to the even more challenging work at the plenary level.

In spite of the advance of the FOI bill signified by the filing of the Committee Report, we lost important time. The last three weeks since the resumption of session on May 4, and early next week when the BBL goes through approval by the Committee on Appropriations, would have been an opportunity to start sponsorship and interpellation of the FOI bill in plenary.

The Need for High Prioritization

This brings to light the importance of a measure being given high prioritization by the leadership of Congress and by the President. The impact of high prioritization on how a measure moves in Congress, particularly for major, controversial or resisted bills like FOI, is all too clear. We saw it in RH, in Sin Tax, and now in BBL.

We attest to the hard work at the committee level of Chair Almonte, FOI authors and champion legislators and their staff, as well as of the advocates in getting the bill through the committee process. We attest to the responsiveness of the Committee on Appropriations and its Chairperson, Rep. Isidro Ungab, in the prompt approval of the appropriations provision of the bill. We also attest to the committed and untiring support from the staff of the committee secretariat. (See legislative history of the FOI bill at the committee level in 16th Congress below).

However, this is where high prioritization spells the difference. To be sure certain steps could have been speeded up if the passage of FOI is given high priority, similar to the bills we mentioned earlier.

Especially at this critical juncture when we approach the third and final regular session in a Presidential election year, the FOI bill cannot be just one of numerous priorities. It will take a very high level of prioritization and leadership if it is to finally pass.

By observation, we are all familiar with the many mechanisms by which a high level of prioritization is conveyed: a high-level meeting, a phone call, adoption of a clear timetable, clearing-up of hold-ups and delays, mention at the State of the Nation Address, the President certifying to the necessity of immediate enactment, and ultimately, the House leadership putting the bill on the plenary agenda and mobilizing key legislators to move the process forward.

The coalition sees it as a challenge for itself and concerned citizens to demonstrate a compelling strength to move our leaders to place the passage of the FOI Bill high in their priorities, as much as we see it as a matter of accountability and question of leadership for the highest leaders of this country.

FOI Tracker Rating Drops

In our FOI Tracker # 1 assessing Congress action on FOI, we said that the bill was well positioned for passage, and in the Green Zone with a rating of 85.

With the delay and anticipating that the BBL will reach plenary given its prioritization, our appeal for the completion of sponsorship and start of interpellation before the June 11 adjournment has turned difficult. Given this, the rating drops by 20 points to 65, and moves to the Yellow Zone. The FOI Tracker may be viewed at http://www.i-foi.org

Legislative History of the FOI Bill at the Committee Level in the 16th Congress

October 23, 2013, Committee organizational meeting, where a motion to create a Technical Working Group (TWG) to consolidate the FOI bills was approved

November 26, 2013,The TWG was constituted

February 6, 2014, TWG Meeting # 1

February 18, 2014, TWG Meeting # 2

March 10, 2014, TWG Meeting # 3

May 12, 2014, TWG Meeting # 4

May 19, 2014, TWG Meeting # 5

May 28, 2014, TWG Meeting # 6

June 9, 2014, TWG Meeting # 7

August 4, 2014, TWG Meeting # 8

September 2, 2014, TWG Meeting # 9, Approval of Substitute Bill

November 24, 2014, Committee Approval of the Substitute Bill
Voting: Nine (9) Yes: Reps. Abad, Aglipay-Villar, Baguilat, Bataoil, Bello, Dalog, Ferriol-Pascual, Gutierrez, Lobregat, Paquiz; Three (3) No: Reps. Colmenares, Romualdo, Tinio

November 25, 2014, Referral to the Committee on Appropriations for approval of the appropriations provision of the Substitute Bill

March 4, 2015, Approval of the appropriations provision, with amendment, by the Committee on Appropriations

March 24, 2015, Certification of Committee on Appropriations action received by the Committee on Public Information

May 14, 2015, Committee Secretariat receives back the documentation of the Committee Report from the 4-step administrative approval by the Committee Affairs Department of the House Secretariat, through the Service Director, Deputy Executive Director, Executive Director and the Deputy Secretary General for Committee Affairs

May 19, 2015, Committee Report signed by Rep. Isidro Ungab on the part of the Committee on Appropriations. Rep. Jorge Almonte, FOI authors and champions agree to a group filing of the Committee Report on May 20, 2015 at 3:30 pm, upon signing of the committee report by Rep. Jorge Almonte on the part of the Committee on Public Information

May 20, 2015, Scheduled group filing of the Committee Report with the Secretary General postponed.