But the lock put by the Constitutional Court, with presentation by Justice Carmen Zuleta de Merchán, is not limited to the assets of officials. In fact, it extends to all issues of the public sphere, since the sentence imposed restrictions on the exercise of the right to information.
In the ruling, Zuleta de Merchán determined that “in the absence of a specific law, and to safeguard the limits of the exercise of the fundamental right to information, it is necessary to: i) the petitioner expressly states the reasons or purposes for which the information is required; and ii) the magnitude of the information requested is proportional to the intended use said information.”
Based on these premises and hiding behind the right to privacy, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Espacio Público because “it fails to establish how the requested information would be useful for citizen participation in favour of transparency of governance. In other words, the relevance of the information requested does not seem proportional for transparency of fiscal management, or the concrete actions for which the requested information would be used.”
Justice Pedro Rondón Haaz abstained arguing that “nowhere in the proceedings was the disclosure of the identity of the officials with their respective wage ever requested. The request was for information on the salary scale used at the Office of the Comptroller General, as part of the right of every citizen to know the income of officials and its impact on their living condition or status.”
In the end, with this ruling, the Supreme Court not only “protected” the accounts of state officials, but added one more obstacle in the way of citizens who want to be fully informed about public affairs.
Extract of the judgment
“The Court notes that the petitioner fails to establish how the requested information would be useful for citizen participation in favour of transparency of governance. In other words, the relevance of the information requested does not seem proportional for transparency of fiscal management, or the concrete actions for which the requested information would be used. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, there is no legitimate reason to tolerate the invasion of this constitutional right to the privacy of the Comptroller General and the other officials in that Office”.