23 July 2026 — After nearly three decades of trying, a national right-to-information law is closer to passage than it has ever been. The Senate and House versions have both cleared third reading, and the bill now heads into bicameral reconciliation, where its final text will be settled.

MBC has tracked this bill’s since at least 2014, when a version fell one quorum short of ratification in the 14th Congress, and another passed the Senate as the “People’s Ownership of Government Information” bill without ever clearing the House in the 15th. This time, both chambers have gotten further than before — which raises a different question than the one MBC has asked in years past: not whether the Right to Information (RTI) Act will pass, but whether, once it does, the law delivers meaningful access to information.

On July 23, MBC, in partnership with the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), put that question to a closed-door roundtable of senior legal, compliance, tax, and government affairs leaders from law, real estate, banking, energy, utilities, telecommunications, and manufacturing. Julia Abad, MBC’s Executive Director, opened the session; Eunice Tanilon presented MBC’s early research on the economic case for information openness; and CIPE Philippines Country Director Ryan Evangelista delivered the closing remarks.

Not missing, just unclear

Rather than debating the principle of transparency, participants focused on the realities of obtaining government information.

The tone in the room was less celebratory than practical, and at times openly frustrated. As one attorney put it early on, the problem was never really that information doesn’t exist — it’s that getting to it, and getting a straight answer once you do, is another matter entirely. Even where documents are technically available, participants said, they are scattered across agencies, and confirming anything often means an in-person follow-up rather than a form filed online.

That inconsistency, several noted, isn’t confined to disagreements between agencies — it shows up within them. More than one participant described regulators who read the same rule differently from one office, or one official, to the next. Local government transitions were cited as another source of uncertainty, with changes in leadership sometimes leading to different interpretations of existing requirements. 

What uncertainty costs

Where information is hard to get or hard to interpret, the room was clear that business pays for it — in staff time, in outside counsel, and in deals that don’t happen. 

One organization operating across multiple provinces described building an in-house research unit and leaning on proxy data just to make basic decisions about where to operate, simply because local government data was incomplete or unavailable. Others noted that routine M&A due diligence — confirming that a target company’s permits are valid and in good standing — can take long enough that clients walk away from the deal entirely.

These experiences reinforce MBC’s own earlier research, which documented law firms assigning up to 22 paralegals solely to retrieve public documents and investment transactions delayed for over a year while awaiting SEC records. Several participants said that maintaining working relationships with regulators had become an important way of anticipating policy changes and reducing uncertainty.

Trust, in both directions

The discussion also highlighted concerns about how the government manages information once it has been disclosed.

Not every account was resigned. Some of the sharpest moments in the discussion were about trust — specifically, what happens once sensitive information leaves a company’s hands. Participants emphasized the need for clear safeguards governing access and use. The discussion reflected support for transparency alongside calls for stronger protections around sensitive information.

By the discussion’s later stretch, the mood had settled into something one participant called cautious optimism — real hope that the law could work, tempered by a clear list of conditions for it to do so.

What would make it count

Participants emphasized that predictability and consistency across agencies would ultimately determine the law’s effectiveness. Executive Order No. 119, which distinguishes between open and restricted government data, was cited as a useful reference point, while recognizing that local governments have varying institutional capacities that implementation should take into account.

Underneath the frustration was a case for upside, not just cost. Reliable procurement, corporate, and environmental data would change how firms price bids, assess risk, and choose where to invest, participants said.

Where this goes next

Passage of the RTI Act, participants agreed, will not by itself resolve what they described. Bicameral reconciliation will decide the law’s final text; implementation will decide whether it means anything — and on the evidence gathered in this room, business intends to watch both closely.

MBC is consolidating the input gathered in this and other sectoral conversations into a policy brief and a shared business position, to bring into the reconciliation process as it unfolds.

MBC thanks CIPE for its continued partnership on this initiative, and the business leaders, legal practitioners, and regulatory and compliance professionals who spoke candidly about what transparency currently costs them — and what they still need it to become.

If you’d like to learn more about this initiative, please us at governance@mbc.com.ph .