Petitioners Raisa Banfield and Joana Abrego.
Commissioners: Felipe Gonzales, Maria Silvia Gull, Luz Patricia Mejía Guerrero.
Participants: Sustainable Panama, Environmental Advocacy Center of Panama
Countries: Panamá.
Topic: Access to public information in Panamá.
At the October 28, 2011 hearing on access to public information in Panamá, Sustainable Panama and the Environmental Advocacy Center of Panama (Petitioners) began by denouncing the pattern of violation of the right of access to public information for citizens and human rights defenders. In particular, the right to access public information related to environmental management in the country, including information on the development of mining projects and non-metallic metals, power generation, and real estate development. While the Petitioners acknowledge Panama’s 2002 Law on Transparency in Public Administration (Transparency Act), as well as the constitutional reforms introduced in 2004, to establish the right of every citizen to access public information, they maintained that in practice the right does not exist.
Various violations of the right to access public information were raised, such as denial of requested information when the requester was not a party to the judicial process. Due to such denials, the Petitioners could no longer produce information on environmental indicators, annual management reports, maps of environmental quality monitoring, statistics, and updating the web site of the Ministry of Environment, among other things.
They added that access to information in Panama is not free. A single copy of a document issued by the government costs ten cents per page. Also, certified copies of public documents are required in order to conduct any judicial proceeding in Panama, which is contrary to the provisions of Article 4 of the Transparency Act. Certified documents cost fifty cents per page and an additional two dollars for each signature of a senior official at the institution. Additionally, the state’s institutions are increasingly applying this rule.
With respect to restricted and confidential information, the law specifies various rules regarding public access and there are several mechanisms for restricting information besides the established law, among them restriction through executive orders, an mechanism that is lower in the hierarchy than a statute such as the Transparency Act.
The Petitioners added that the most important reason Panama does not have good access to public information is the lack of an effective judicial remedy to prevent such violations. They added that the action of Habeas Data is de facto irrelevant since the Environmental Advocacy Center has presented thirty Habeas Data actions before the Supreme Court and only one has been resolved in the course of three years.
The Petitioners determined that the regions most affected by the lack of access to public information are the communities where large companies authorized bidding for exploration and exploitation of natural resources. They requested that the Commission investigate this problem and issue general recommendations to the State in its annual report, accept more information from civil society organizations, and make site visits to the country.
After the presentation of the Petitioners, the State recognized that the right of access to information is a prerequisite for the development of a democratic state and allows citizens to monitor public authorities and government policy. The State presented various programs it has been developing, created to strengthen the mechanisms of access to public information– including the adoption of the Transparency Act along with executive orders and resolutions that support the progressive development of this law. As well as Law 65 of 2009, which established the National Authority for Government Innovation, allowing it to plan, coordinate, monitor, collaborate, and promote the optimal use of information technology and communications for the modernization of the State’s public information. Also, the government released other mechanisms that facilitate access to public information, such as State websites.
The State’s explanations of the Transparency Act conceded that there are deficiencies in the application of the law, but the government is doing everything possible to eradicate them. One example of an attempted remedy is the project “Country Paperless,” which the State wants to implement in 2012. This law will make the procedures in government institutions electronic from start to finish, similar to other cyber modernization projects.
Commissioners seemed particularly interested in the State’s implementation mechanisms for its Transparency Act. After the presentation of the parties, Catalina Bottero—Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression—asked about the implementation standards of the Law on Access to Information, and what information the State has determined “reserved.” She also asked if the State had punished violators of this law and what is the extent to which the State engages in “active transparency.” Maria Silvia Gullén and the Petitioners asked the government of Panamá to send information from the executive orders, which have modified the Law on Access to Information, and explain why they claim that Habeas Data is dysfunctional. Commissioners asked if the State has mechanisms to verify compliance with the responsibilities of staff regarding access to information and about the mechanisms of communication to communities on major projects to be developed on their territories. Luz Patricia Mejia asked about people who are authorized to set the values charged for access to different media and mechanisms used to determine those costs.
Petitioners responded that the transparency law is not being carried out. Access to public information is determined by the national and municipal governments based on interest in the case, while classified information, which occurs in the regulation of environmental audits are completely confidential.
The State in turn determined that the environmental impact study must provide the information to the communities that may be affected by the implementation of the project.
They added that the Supreme Court resolved a large number of Habeas Data cases and ended by discussing Law Project 352, which involves prior and informed consultation with indigenous peoples and began on April 1, 2011. With no more time for development of other topics, the hearing was closed.
