Transparency of Transaction and Access to Information

Section 1. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts

and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest.
Section 2. It is the responsibility of heads of departments, offices and agencies to
establish measures and standards that will ensure transparency of and openness in
public transactions in their respective offices, such as in biddings, purchases, other
financial transactions including contracts, status of projects, and all other matters
involving public interest.
They shall establish information system that will inform the public of the
following: (a) policies, rules, and procedures; (b) work programs, projects, and
performance targets; (c) performance reports; and (d) all other documents as may
hereafter be classified as public information.
Such public information shall be utilized solely for the purpose of informing the
public of such policies, programs and accomplishments, and not to build the public
image of any official or employee or to advance his own personal interest.
Section 3. Every department, office or agency shall provide official information,
records or documents to any requesting public, except if:
(a) such information, record or document must be kept secret in the interest of
national defense or security or the conduct of foreign affairs;
(b) such disclosure would put the life and safety of an individual in imminent
danger;
(c) the information, record or document sought falls within the concepts of
established privilege or recognized exceptions as may be provided by law or
settled policy or jurisprudence;
(d) such information, record or document comprises drafts of decisions, orders,
rulings, policy decisions, memoranda, etc.;
(e) it would disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(f) it would disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement
purposes or information which if written would be contained in such
records, but only to the extent that the production of such records or
information would (i) interfere with enforcement proceedings, (ii) deprive a
person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (iii) disclose the
identity of a confidential source and in the case of a record compiled by a
criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation,
or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence
investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential
32
source, or (iv) unjustifiably disclose investigative techniques and procedures;
or
(g) it would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would (i) in the case of a
department, office or agency which agency regulates currencies,
securities, commodities, or financial institutions, be likely to lead to
significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities, or
significantly endanger the stability of any financial institution; or (ii) in the
case of any department, office or agency be likely or significantly to frustrate
implementation of a proposed official action, except that subparagraph (f) (ii)
shall not apply in any instance where the department, office or agency has
already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action,
or where the department, office or agency is required by law to make such
disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final official action on such
proposal.
Section 4. Every head of department, office and agency shall establish information systems and
networks that will effect the widest possible dissemination of
information regarding the provisions of the Code, and the policies and programs relative
thereto.

Transparency, as used in science, engineering, business, the humanities and in

other social contexts, implies openness, communication, and accountability. Transparency is
operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed. It has been
defined simply as "the perceived quality of intentionally shared information from a
sender".[1] Transparency is practiced in companies, organizations, administrations, and
communities.[2] It guides an organization's decisions and policies on the disclosure of information to
its employees and the public, or simply the intended recipient of the information.

Management
Recent research suggests there are three primary aspects of transparency relevant to management
practice: information disclosure, clarity, and accuracy.[1] To increase transparency, managers actively
infuse greater disclosure, clarity, and accuracy into their communications with stakeholders. For
example, managers that voluntarily share information related to the firm's ecological impact with
environmental activists are demonstrating disclosure; managers that limit the use of technical
terminology, fine print, or complicated mathematical notations in their correspondence with suppliers
and customers are demonstrating clarity; and managers that do not bias, embellish, or otherwise
distort known facts in their communications with investors are demonstrating accuracy.
The strategic management of transparency therefore involves intentional modifications in disclosure,
clarity, and accuracy to accomplish the organization's specific objectives.[1]
Alternatively, radical transparency is a management method where nearly all decision making is
carried out publicly. All draft documents, all arguments for and against a proposal, all final decisions,
and the decision making process itself are made public and remain publicly archived. This approach
has grown in popularity with the rise of the Internet.[5] Two examples of organizations utilizing this
style are the GNU/Linux community and Indymedia.
Corporate transparency, a form of radical transparency, is the concept of removing all barriers to
and the facilitating of free and easy public access to corporate information and the laws, rules,
social connivance and processes that facilitate and protect those individuals and corporations that
freely join, develop, and improve the process.[6]

Non-governmental organizations
Accountability and transparency are of high relevance for non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
In view of their responsibilities to stakeholders, including donors, sponsors, programme
beneficiaries, staff, states and the public, they are considered to be of even greater importance to
them than to commercial undertakings.[7] Yet these same values are often found to be lacking in
NGOs.[7]
The International NGO Accountability Charter, linked to the Global Reporting Initiative, documents
the commitment of its members international NGOs to accountability and transparency, requiring
them to submit an annual report, among others.[8][9] Signed in 2006 by 11 NGOs active in the area of
humanitarian rights, the INGO Accountability Charter has been referred to as the first global
accountability charter for the non-profit sector.[10] In 1997, the One World Trust created an NGO
Charter, a code of conduct comprising commitment to accountability and transparency.

Politics

A 2011 plaque recognizing the municipality of Santa Barbara, Pangasinan for its "efforts in advancing the
principles of accountability and transparency in local governance."

The right and the means to examine the process of decision making is known as transparency. In
politics, transparency is used as a means of holding public officials accountable and
fighting corruption. When a government's meetings are open to the press and the public,
its budgets may be reviewed by anyone, and its laws and decisions are open to discussion, it is seen
as transparent. It is not clear however if this provides less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the
system for their own interests.[13]
When military authorities classify their plans as secret, transparency is absent. This can be seen as
either positive or negative; positive because it can increase national security, negative because it
can lead to corruption and, in extreme cases, a military dictatorship.
While a liberal democracy can be a plutocracy, where decisions are made behind locked doors and
the people have fewer possibilities to influence politics between the elections, a participative
democracy is more closely connected to the will of the people.[citation needed] Participative democracy,
built on transparency and everyday participation, has been used officially in northern Europe for
decades. In the northern European country Sweden, public access to government
documents became a law as early as 1766. It has officially been adopted as an ideal to strive for by
the rest of EU, leading to measures like freedom of information laws and laws for lobby
transparency.
To promote transparency in politics, Hans Peter Martin, Paul van Buitenen (Europa Transparant)
and Ashley Mote decided to cooperate under the name Platform for Transparency (PfT) in 2005.
Similar organizations that promotes transparency are Transparency International and the Sunlight
Foundation.
A recent political movement to emerge in conjunction with the demands for transparency is
the Pirate Party, a label for a number of political parties across different countries who advocate
freedom of information, direct democracy, network neutrality, and the free sharing of knowledge.