Do the people have the right to know what their representatives are discussing? The Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) gave the answer: No!
Civil organisations Transparency Venezuela, Paz Activa and Espacio Publico appeared before the highest court of the country to demand the National Assembly the publication of Journal of Debates and the Legislative Gazette.
This was not an extraordinary request. On the contrary. They simply sought the application of provisions of the Rules of Procedure and Debates of the Venezuelan Parliament. Article 135 of the instrument states that the Journal of Debates “shall be made public and distributed to all deputies, as well as to institutions and persons determined by the Board (of the NA), using the most expeditious media.”
The Journal of Debates should include “the opinions and votes cast by each deputy; the bills put to the vote, with their preambles and approved texts; agreements, draft agreements and approved texts, and in general all acts passed and approved by the National Assembly.”
Regarding the Legislative Gazette, Article 136 of the Rules of Procedure states that “it shall be published at least once a month” and shall contain “a list of the bills received, as well as those approved by the National Assembly, the adopted agreements, list of committee reports and any other documents of similar nature, an attendance list of the deputies to the sessions of the National Assembly,” among others.
The action originally filed by these NGOs with the First and Second Administrative Courts on June 17, 2014, was resolved by the Presiding Justice of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the TSJ himself, Emiro García Rosas, on October 27, 2015.
Based on arguments of the Constitutional Chamber of the TSJ, Rosas García rejected the action because “the petitioners did not argue the reasons for which they require the publication of the Journal of Debates and the Legislative Gazette. Also, it is not clear how the required information can be useful, or how it could influence the performance of their duties as civil associations.”
In addition to closing the door to the NGOs, the head of the Political-Administrative Chamber said that this kind of “generic” petitions hinder the normal functioning of public administration, “which (…) would have to devote time and human resources in order to give explanations about the wide range of activities to be undertaken for the benefit of society, which would entail an unnecessary work overload that could hamper the justice system because of these petitions.”
Extract of the judgment
It is clear that the claim of the petitioner are answers to multiple questions concerning the procedures relating to the publication of the Journal of Debates and the Legislative Gazette, as provided in the Rules of Procedure and Debates of the National Assembly, due to the alleged failure to publish..”
