The Federal Supreme Court Reaffirms the Right of Access to Public Information

In recent weeks, the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice (the "Supreme Court") issued three important rulings on the subject of access to public information.
 
On October 14, 2014 the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Federal Court of Appeals on Administrative Matters (the “Court of Appeals”) which had upheld two amparo actions against the National Ministry of Justice and Human Right and against the National Ministry of Federal Planning Public Investment and Services of the (the "Ministry of Planning").
 
Moreover, on October 21, 2014, the Supreme Court overturned a judgment of the Superior Court of Jujuy which had dismissed a judicial action seeking to obtain information from the provincial government.
 
1. The claims filed against Federal agencies
 
In both cases, the amparo actions were filed by former Deputy Ricardo Gil Lavedra after the rejection of requests for information presented within the terms of Decree N° 1172/2003 (“Decree 1172”), which regulates access to public information at a federal level. It should be highlighted that the Supreme Court did not give any weight to the fact that the plaintiff was a lawmaker, only taking into consideration his rights as a citizen.
 
In re “Gil Lavedra, Ricardo R. c/. EN – M de Justicia y DDHH”, Mr. Gil Lavedra initiated amparo actions in order for the Public Registry of Commerce (the “PRC”) to disclose information regarding several corporations.
 
In re “Gil Lavedra, Ricardo y otro c/ Estado Nacional – Ministro de Planificación Federal Inversión Pública y Servicios s/amparo”, Mr. Gil Lavedra, along with others Argentine lawmakers, initiated amparo actions requesting the Ministry of Planning disclose and hand over documents regarding public bidding proceedings for the construction of two dams in the south of the country.
 
In both cases, the Appellate Court upheld the amparo actions and ordered the addressed agencies to hand over the solicited information as per the terms of Decree 1172.
 
The Federal Government filed extraordinary appeals and in both cases the Supreme Court rejected the challenges, confirming the appealed decisions.
 
The Court’s decisions were signed by the justices Lorenzetti, Fayt, Highton de Nolasco and Maqueda. Justice Zaffaroni did not issue a vote.
 
In deciding these cases, the Supreme Court recalled that “the right to request information in the hands of the State is held by everyone, without the need to prove specific interest or grievance; that is, the standing is broad, in accordance with the principle of maximum disclosure which governs the matter."
 
2. The claim against the Jujuy Government
 
This claim was filed by provincial Deputy, Carlos A. Oehler. Faced with the refusal of a request made under the terms of the Provincial Law No. 4444, Oehler filed a lawsuit against the Tourism Secretariat of the Province of Jujuy, in order for the Court to order the handing over of certain information regarding agencies provided in provincial legislation.
 
The lawsuit was first rejected by Provincial Tribunals.
 
Against the judgment of the Superior Court of the Province of Jujuy, Oehler filed an extraordinary appeal, allowing the case to be considered by the Supreme Court.
 
The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Superior Court of the Province of Jujuy and ordered the provincial government to hand over the required information.
 
The Supreme Court decision was signed by justices Lorenzetti, Fayt and Highton de Nolasco. Justices Maqueda and Zaffaroni did not issue votes.
 
Citing precedents from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court considered that according to international standards, the right of access to public information “belongs to everyone; that is, the standing is broad”.
 
As the judgment states, “the grounds of access to information in the hands of the State is the right that every person has to know how their governors and its civil servants work”.
 
3. Final Comments
 
These three Supreme Court judgments consolidate a criterion favorable to the full effectiveness of the right to public information, in line with the criteria established in the “PAMI” and “CIPPEC” cases, decided on December 4, 2012 and March 26, 2014.
 
As stated in the Statement of Purposes to Decree 1172, the right of access to public information “is a prerequisite to the participation which allows for the control of corruption, optimizing the efficiency of governmental instances and the improvement of the quality of life of the people, by providing them with the possibility of knowing the content of the decisions that are taken daily to help define and support the aims for a better community."
 
These statements of the Supreme Court, to the extent that they reaffirm the right of citizens to know the information held by the State, clearly contribute to the achievement of such objectives.