Ten Reasons Why EO 47 is Defective in Form
1. NO CONSULTATION PROCESS. Contrary to the characteristics of good governance, which primarily mandates decision-making processes to be participatory, consultative and inclusive, EO 47, which effectively abolished the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT), was issued without consulting the stakeholders of the information and communications technology (ICT) sector. In fact, in their media pronouncements, even the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) claimed they were not also consulted about the move. The CICT, even out of courtesy and to allow a smooth transition from CICT’s 10 –year operation to DOST, was not also consulted and did not even have an idea about the existence of EO 47.
2. THE PRESIDENT WAS BLINDED. The President, based on the chronology of events and the collation of facts, could have been blinded into signing EO 47. EO 47 was signed on June 23, 2011 as shown on its face. But a few days before that, the President appointed a new commissioner to the CICT to head the Human Capital Development (HCD) Group which was left vacant for about a year. Sources say when some personalities confronted the President about the fact that the new commissioner only stayed in office for a couple of days and lost his position by reason of EO 47, the President allegedly answered “let me check”. In addition, for the first time, Secretary Ivan Uy, chair of the CICT was invited to the cabinet meeting called by the President on June 29, 2011 and was even made to present the Philippine Digital Strategy 2011-2015 for more than half an hour. No one informed Secretary Uy that, six days of on June 23, 2011, his position was already scrapped. Although technically, EO 47 was made effective on July 6, 2011, upon its publication on that day in the Manila Bulletin. Decency dictates that you do not cause a person to work without being informed that his termination was already signed a week prior. This only shows that the President was not well-apprised of the contents of EO and its implications.
3. NO BASIS FOR DOWNGRADING ICT. The abolition of the CICT has no basis. On the contrary for the last two years, all ICT stakeholders have been pushing for the upgrading of CICT to a department. This is supported on record by various supporting statements and petitions, written and verbal, in the records of the Senate and the House of Representatives where there are pending legislations seeking for the creation of a Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT). Several government line agencies and departments have also been supporting the move, including the DOST, which just suddenly changed its position during the Joint Hearing on the DICT Bill called by Senator Edgardo Angara, chair of the Senate Committee on Science and Technology and Representative Sigfrido Tinga, chair of House Committee on ICT. In fact, the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Philippine Development Plan (NEDA PDP) 2011-2016 which was recently approved by the President supported the creation of the DICT. All the major business organizations including the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Joint Foreign Chambers already came out with their statements supporting the creation of the DICT.
4. THE TITLE WAS DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. EO 47 used the action words “reorganizing, renaming and transferring” CICT when in fact is serve to dissolve and abolish the CICT. The framing of the title itself has been made to hide the real intent of the executive order. When the President probably read EO 47 beginning with its title, he did not realize its real effect because the framers of EO 47 shielded the eyes of the President from seeing that it really is a piece of document that abolishes the CICT, the same CICT to which he appointed a new commissioner just a few days prior. All the positions of the commissioners and the chair of CICT where dissolved by reason of EO 47 – that in effect, is not synonymous to a re-organization much more so a renaming. The fact that the CICT is a cabinet-level commission directly under the Office of the President, while the office created by EO 47 is under the DOST – do not speak of a mere transfer. The ICT office that EO 47 created under DOST is going to be manned by an executive director. EO 47 effectively abolished the four efficient and operational groups with assigned commissioners under the CICT, namely the HCD, Infrastructure Management, Cyberservices and e-Governance.
5. REGRESSIVE AND RUNS OPPOSITE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ICT SECTOR BASED ON A HISTORICAL TIMELINE. EO 47 runs counter and opposite to the direction of ICT development based on the history of the ICT sector in the Philippines and the previous presidential policies that impact on the growth of the sector. In 1994, with EO No. 190 of Fidel V. Ramos, created the National Information Technology Council (NITC) with the rationale that no single department such as the DOST can contain the full extent of the ICT sector. With EO No. 264, Joseph Ejercito Estrada established the Information Technology And Electronic Commerce Council (ITECC) from the merger of the National Information Technology Council (NITC) and the Electronic Commerce Promotion Council (ECPC). Both presidents made it their responsibility to chair the said councils. In consideration of the other responsibilities of the president and at the same time the importance of ICT development, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, with EO No. 269 created the CICT, a cabinet-level agency in transition to a department and placed the CICT directly under the Office of the President. Notable to mention is that it is in fact the DTI and DOTC and not the DOST that played major roles in the councils which were forerunners of CICT. But today, EO 47, despite the upward trend of the ICT bodies through the years by reason of presidential policies, was given little value and remanded a a concern to be handled by a mere office and run by an executive director.
6. GLARING FORMAL ERROR. Instead of “By Authority of the President”, Paquito Ochoa signed EO 47 under the term “By The President”. Without the name of the President indicated in EO 47 before the name of Mr. Ochoa and with the signature of the President appearing on the side without any name, EO 47 being an executive legislation is not entirely without flaw and is open to a lot of surmises and interpretations as to what really took place when the President signed the said document, which harmless as some people may want to depict, but will in fact bring with major complications and repercussions in the ICT sector.
7. NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT’S PRINCIPLE OF “KAYO ANG BOSS KO”. The President and the Liberal Party in its primer defines governance as the relationship between civil society and the state, between the rulers and the ruled, the government and the governed. It is the process of making collective decisions, a task in which government may not play a leading, or even any role. In this view, government is taken as the instrument, while the process for governing involves governance. Good governance rests upon the principles of transparency, accountability, openness, and the rule of law. The process by which EO 47 was issued is an anathema to the persona and party of the President and is therefore believed to be not his own making.
8. A DISRUPTIVE POLICY. EO 47 did not take into consideration the need for at least a smooth transition between the CICT and the ICT office under the DOST. EO 47’s provision that it becomes effective immediately without the benefit of even just a short period for CICT and all its stakeholders in the private sector to wind up, draw a lot of suspicions as to why the urgency. For DOST to have just started consulting and appeasing all the organizations and to have retained some top-level CICT officials for purposes of a three-month transition is clearly a hindsight. If EO 47 was done in good faith, the three-month period could have been done without suspending CICT operations in the meantime.
9. AN OPPRESSIVE POLICY. EO 47 now ties the hands most of the ICT organizations and institutions, leaving them with no choice but to accept the policy or otherwise earn government’s wrath and no longer enjoy government’s favor. EO 47 puts everyone on a “take it or leave it situation” considering the degree of passion and commitment many ICT stakeholders devote upon the sector. The temperament of the ICT sector is one which believes that the less trouble, the less argument, the less conflict with government is the best case scenario to ensure that the industry is not affected. The ICT sector is now forced to adopt the “business as usual” attitude. Various corners in fact, as a coping mechanism to the blow of EO 47, repeat in their minds the principle of “less dependence in government”, “we have done it without government anyway” and the so-called “private sector-led ICT industry”. At the end of the day, no matter how much we pretend that everything is normal, we know deep inside, something bad just happened.
10. CONTRARY TO MANY EXISTING LAWS. As of this writing, some researchers are still working of a list of international commitments and treaties that the Philippine Government has entered into with the CICT as implementing agency, since it is said that there are many. In the meantime, the pending data privacy law and the cybercrime law provide that the CICT is going to enforce it. That will have to go back to square one.
--
Best Regards,
Atty. Jocelle Batapa-Sigue
Chair, National ICT Confederation of the Philippines (NICP)
Suite 201 Terra Bldg. Galo-Gatuslao Sts. Bacolod City 6100
