The Public Bar Association criticized the decree that limits access to public information

He Public Bar Association of the City of Buenos Aires demanded the repeal of decree 780/2024 that modified the regulations of the Law on Access to Public Information. The law limited the scope of the requests, preventing access to information that was private to officials.

Ricardo Gil Lavedrahead of the college, signed a joint declaration with seventy civil society organizations. “It implies a serious regression in the interpretation of the right of access to information in the light of the international standards of human rights and fight against corruption“, the organization warned.

Criticism of the Public Bar Association

Following the announcement by the national government, the Public Bar Association of the City of Buenos Aires openly opposed the law. They stressed that it is “in contradiction” with the current law.

The document, signed by seventy organizations in total, denounces that the new regulations generate “a discretionary regulatory framework by which the political definitions of the government and the Subjective decisions of officials would take precedence over the law to access information held by the State.”

“The aforementioned Decree expands the information that remains “outside the public interest, it extends secrecy and provides discretion” the organization stated. Finally, the text stated: “We request the National Executive Power to repeal this Decree and ensure full access to public information.

What changes did the government decree on access to public information establish?

Through Decree 780/2024, published this Monday in the Official Gazette, the Executive power regulated the Article 1° of the Law No. 27,275 in what they mentioned as “good faith“. Thus, the announcement stated: “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.”

In order to carry out the proposed changes, Milei’s government had to modify the concept and scope of what is known as ““public information”. In this sense, they detailed: “It will not be understood as public information that contains data of a private nature that was generated, obtained, transformed, controlled or kept by private individuals or legal entities or due to the absence of a public interest involved, unrelated to the management of the obligated subjects listed in article 7 of Law No. 27,275 and its amendment.”

Following this logic, the libertarian administration did the same with the concept 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, oe

The preliminary examination of a matter will not be considered public documents,” they clarified.

In addition, the regulation of Article 4 established changes in the requirements to advance in the request for access to information. In this way, they explained that “in the case of a human being”, the same must be presented name and surname, identification document, address and email.

On the other hand, if it is a legal entity, it must present “the Company name and tax ID number and the identification of its representative in accordance with the terms of paragraph a). Additionally, copy of the legalized power of attorney valid document proving his/her status as a representative or authorized representative for such purposes.”

Regarding exceptions, the government set “the exception will be inapplicable when the the data owner has given consent for its disclosure or when the data is closely related to the competencies of public officials“In detail, this exception may be applied 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 damages and losses; is related to complaints or ongoing investigations that, if made public, may put complainants, witnesses, victims or any other person involved at risk.”

Regarding other specific cases, the regulations decreed that “in the legal cases where cases of serious human rights violations, genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity are investigated and judged The exceptions contained in this article shall not apply.the obliged subject must provide the information required within the framework of the case“.

Finally, the Government provided details on the platform for managing access to public information. It will “contain a record that allows the applicant’s identificationhe 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.”