The judiciary once again looks for excuses to deny access to public information and protect state institutions from having to give answers to citizens seeking information on corruption.
The Second Court of Administrative Litigation of the Supreme Court, in a presentation by Justice Osvaldo Enrique Rodriguez Rugeles declared inadmissible on 8 August the action for negligence filed by Transparency Venezuela on July 8 against the director of the Autonomous Service of Registries and Notaries (SAREN), Dante Rivas, for failing to give response to numerous letters containing information related to alleged corruption committed by officials of that institution.
It is worth recalling that the NGO received through the mobile application “Dilo Aquí” a number of complaints, forwarded in letters dated January 18 and March 16, 2012; January 27, April 24, June 17, and December 2, 2014, March 30, and April 24, 2015, to the office of Dante Rivas.
Since there was no response, the legal representatives of Transparency Venezuela filed the legal action “in recognition of the importance of the duty of the National Government through its institutions, to encourage and promote transparency and accountability in all actions and procedures, as part of the fight against corruption”.
As explained by T.V.’s lawyers, Rodriguez Rugeles’s decision means:
1) The Second Court of Administrative Litigation released SAREN from the obligation to respond because:
“[Transparency Venezuela] did not indicate the reasons and the purposes for which it required the Autonomous Service of Registries and Notaries to provide information concerning the alleged complaints made against officials from that entity for alleged corruption”.
2) Even if Transparency Venezuela had indicated the reasons and purposes for which it required the information, the Second Court would have arrived at the same decision because:
‘(…) It does not have any standing to request the Autonomous Service of Registries and Notaries to provide information related to alleged acts of corruption, since such investigations should be carried out by state agencies established for this purpose; therefore, the civil association cannot be deemed legitimate to make such requirements”.
3) The Second Court follows the pattern set in 2010[1] by the Constitutional Court, and once again denies citizens the possibility to request information from their institutions, and even worse, it forgets that constitutionally “the Public Administration must serve the citizens”[2], and brings into disrepute the comptroller function of society, expressly violating Article 10 of the Law against Corruption, which establishes the right of all individuals to:
“request from bodies and entities (…) any information on the administration and custody of Public Assets of such bodies and entities. They can also access and obtain copies of relevant documents and files to examine or verify the information provided (…)”.
4) At Transparency Venezuela we insist that such arguments not only limit the exercise of a right but are unnecessary in a democratic society.
5) We affirm the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights which established that “the full exercise of the right of access to information is necessary to prevent abuses by public officials, promote accountability and transparency in public administration, and allow a solid and informed public debate to ensure effective remedies against government abuses and prevent corruption”.
Transparency Venezuela ratifies that public officials must respond to requests made by citizens and have an intrinsic obligation to provide answers to them and to present the final decisions taken on the matter as provided in Article 141 of the Venezuelan Constitution.
