Making right to info work for businesses
The right to information (RTI) is often viewed as an anticorruption tool, but for businesses, it also serves as essential economic infrastructure. Firms require accessible and reliable information—including data, regulations, and transaction status—to plan activities, ensure compliance, and invest in the Philippines. When such information is difficult to obtain or trust, the cost shows up as delayed projects, tied-up resources, and decisions put on hold.
In June and July 2026, I worked with the Makati Business Club to conduct key informant interviews and focused discussions across various sectors. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of insufficient right-to-information infrastructure on firms. The message was clear: information may be available but often remains scattered across offices, outdated, inaccessible in usable formats, or misinterpreted by agencies and local governments, posing major challenges for businesses.
Firms absorb that uncertainty through staff time, advisory fees, repeated follow-ups, delayed payments, idle inventory, and postponed investment. Some become more cautious about public procurement or unfamiliar locations. Larger companies may absorb these costs, but smaller firms and new entrants often cannot. Opacity can therefore tilt the playing field toward those with stronger networks and deeper pockets, perpetuating inequalities among firms and hindering private sector development. Public information should not become a private advantage for those who can afford to search for it.
The House and Senate have each passed an RTI bill on third and final reading. The next task is bicameral reconciliation, and Congress should schedule it promptly while the reform has momentum. The two versions need not be treated as an either-or choice. Each contains features that can strengthen the final law.
First, the reconciled bill should retain the House provision establishing an independent RTI commission and a single national RTI portal. The House bill creates a quasi-judicial RTI commission, while the Senate bill leaves external enforcement largely to the courts, thereby increasing transaction costs. For routine requests, going straight to court is not a practical remedy. Moreover, establishing a commission will better ensure accountability. This approach prevents agencies from having the final say on request refusals and spares regular requesters from resorting to court for routine information. The RTI commission can serve as an intermediary to resolve such disputes.
Second, the bicameral committee should adopt RTI policies that promote proactive and accessible information disclosure. The Senate bill contains a detailed list of fiscal, procurement, and transaction information for publication. The House bill is stronger on machine-readable formats, data quality, corrections, and version history. The final law should carry both. This ensures agencies remain accountable for the quality of information released. Information is of little value to firms if it is incorrect, inaccessible, or unverifiable, such as when data is only available as scanned PDFs (a perennial issue for researchers like me when dealing with government data).
Third, accountability measures must be embedded in the RTI law, including transparency in end-to-end transactions and formal channels for clarifying RTI requests. Our interviews highlighted the close connection between RTI and the government’s anti-red tape policies. The RTI law should also cover transaction-related information requests. Private sector feedback made it clear that RTI is integral to transparency measures that build trust and confidence in governance.
Finally, wider access must be paired with a credible process to protect confidential information. The government holds trade secrets, personal data, technical designs, records, and security information. Affected parties should be notified and able to seek redaction and review before information is released, without granting businesses an absolute veto over disclosure. Information linked to public funds, contracts, and delegated functions must remain transparent. The law should clearly define the limits of privileged business information.
Reform is within reach. We urge Congress to convene the bicameral conference, combine the strongest parts of both bills, and answer the people’s call for transparency. And in the process, prop up and enhance private sector development by providing access to government information that is accessible, reliable, and consistent, thereby supporting the engine of development.
—————-
Lawrence Velasco is a public policy researcher focusing on public and corporate finance, comparative public administration, and infrastructure policy, and a Ph.D. candidate in Public Policy at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
—————-
Business Matters is a project of the Makati Business Club (makatibusinessclub@mbc.com.ph)
