So far, countries have adopted two distinct approaches when implementing these two laws. Some have established separate bodies for their enforcement. They include countries like Austria, Canada, Denmark, Romania, Spain, and Sweden.³⁵ In jurisdictions like New Zealand and Peru, they have their ombudsman’s office enforcing their FOI law.³⁶ Others have created a single agency to handle both FOI and privacy protection. Among them are Australia, Germany, Malta, Mexico, and Thailand.³⁷ Each approach has its own merits and downsides. Maintaining separate implementing bodies creates clear champions unencumbered by the need to balance two competing interests. Though, it also means potential conflicts between the agencies, which could get messy, expensive, and even downright embarrassing.³⁸ People could also receive conflicting advice.³⁹ In these instances, there should be official processes that enable cooperation and minimize conflicts.⁴⁰ On the other hand, having a common implementing body means there is shared expertise and a reduction of potential or actual conflict. This makes things easier for the public with only one point of contact to elevate one’s concerns.⁴¹ It will also reduce the misuse of data protection by government agencies.⁴² However, a singleagency arrangement could also give rise to situations where one interest may appeal more to those managing the agency at a particular point in time, making them incapable of carrying out the balancing process objectively.⁴³ Lack of necessary resources is also a common issue given the two gargantuan tasks the lone agency is responsible for.⁴⁴ In the Philippines, the current FOI system is being administered by the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO), under the Office of the President. The authority to implement the data privacy law, on the other hand, lies with the NPC. Case Study: Duterte’s EO No. 2 (2016) Numerous individuals and organizations have utilized the limited FOI mechanism established by Duterte’s EO No. 2 (2016) for various purposes. For instance, Rappler Philippines used documents obtained through the FOI system to run a story showing how the President’s foreign trips so far cost triple the amount incurred by his predecessors within the same period of their respective terms.⁴⁵ ³⁵ Human Dynamics. Legal balance of interest between transparency of public life and data protection. dzlp.mk/sites/default/files/doc_id_1.1.21.pdf. See also: Banisar, D. (2011). Op. cit. ³⁶ Pearlman, M. (2007). Freedom of information. law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Lif e/CL-OGI-Pearlman-FOI-English.pdf ³⁷ Human Dynamics. Op. cit. See also: Banisar, D. (2011). Op. cit. ³⁸ Ibid. ³⁹ Ibid. ⁴⁰ Ibid. ⁴¹ Ibid. ⁴² Banisar, D. (2011). Op. cit. ⁴³ Ibid. ⁴⁴ Ibid. ⁴⁵ Ranada, P. (2017, June 17). Duterte’s foreign trips cost thrice more than predecessors’. Rappler. www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/173127rodrigo-duterte-foreign-trips-cost-first-year-aquinoarroyo 6