The government of Javier Milei advanced in the modification of the regulations of the Law on Access to Public Informationthrough the redefinition of terminology and limiting access to private information.
Through Decree 780/2024, published this Monday in the Official Gazette, the Executive Branch regulated Article 1 of Law No. 27,275 in what they referred to as “good faith.”
In this way, it was emphasized: “The violation of the principle of good faith by all the actors involved constitutes the assumption provided for in article 10 of the Civil and Commercial Code of the Nation.”
To implement the changes, the Libertarian administration also modified the concept and scope of what is known as “public information,” stating: “Information containing private data generated, obtained, transformed, controlled or held by private individuals or legal entities or due to the absence of a committed public interest, outside the management of the obligated subjects listed in Article 7 of Law No. 27,275 and its amendment, shall not be considered public information.”
Along the same lines, they did the same with the definition of “document.”
“The definition of document established in Law No. 27,275 and its amendment must be understood as referring to any record that has been generated, that is controlled or that is kept within the framework of state activity. Preparatory deliberations and working papers, or the preliminary examination of a matter, will not be considered public documents,” they clarified.
On the other hand, in the regulations of article 4, the requirements for advancing in the request for access to information were established.
To do so, “in the case of a natural person” the applicant must present his or her name and surname, identity document, address and email address.
“In the case of a legal entity, the company name and CUIT and the identification of its representative in accordance with the terms of section a). Additionally, a copy of the valid legalized power of attorney that accredits its status as representative or authorized for such purposes,” they stressed.
Article 8, concerning exceptions, provides that “the exception shall not apply when the data subject has given consent for its disclosure or when the data are closely related to the powers of public officials.”
At the same time, the exception will apply to all information that: “Due to its specificity, can be used to identify a person’s routines, movements and locations; its public knowledge, dissemination or disclosure may, directly or indirectly, cause damage and harm; it is related to complaints or ongoing investigations that, if made public, may put complainants, witnesses, victims or any other person involved at risk.”
“In judicial proceedings where cases of serious human rights violations, genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity are investigated and judged, the exceptions contained in this article will not be applicable, and the obliged subject must provide the information required within the framework of the case,” the document clarified.
Finally, the Government established that the platform for managing access to Public Information “will contain a registry that allows the identification of the applicant, the content of the request and the response provided in order to expedite and facilitate the response to new requests whose content coincides with that of other requests previously submitted.”
“For the purposes of compiling statistics, the Public Information Access Agency will take into consideration those repetitive requests that generate an unnecessary expenditure of administrative activity on the part of the obliged subjects, or that constitute an abuse in the exercise of the right of access to public information by the applicants,” they also stressed.
Source: Ambito
