Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of Costa Rica protected José Mujica Rojas’ right of access to public information by ordering the Municipality of Santa Cruz to deliver data regarding maritime public concessions. The case was heard by the Court after the plaintiff filed a claim (amparo action) because his access to public information request was denied by the Municipality of Santa Cruz. The Court highlighted the importance of divulging information about environmental matters —and the duty of transparency this entails— and concluded that the municipal authority breached the right of access to information of the plaintiff.

Facts

In May 2017, José Mojica Rojas, a journalist from La Voz de Guanacaste, was working on a project concerning public concessions over the Maritime Terrestrial Zone of Santa Cruz, Costa Rica. Upon learning that the Municipality of Santa Cruz had databases that registered these authorizations, on May 08, 2017, he sent an email to the Mayor’s Office requesting information on the concessions granted by the Municipality over the beaches of the region, the existent databases where such information is located, and copies of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality and the Concessions Manual.

On May 10, 2017, he presented an oral request to the Municipality, but the public office denied the delivery of the information on the grounds that it was necessary to obtain previous authorization from Mayor María Rosa López. On May 24, the plaintiff met with Mayor López to request her to sign a letter that would allow him to receive the information. However, she refused to review the documents.

The journalist made several calls to the Mayor’s Office after the incident, but the information was never provided. On June 8, 2017, Mojica filed a claim (amparo action) against the Municipality of Santa Cruz.

Decision Overview

The Supreme Court of Costa Rica had to determine whether the refusal of the Municipality to provide the information requested violated the journalist’s right of access to public information.

The Court noted that article 30 of the Constitution of Costa Rica and diverse international legal instruments, such as article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article IV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, understand the right of access to public information as a component of freedom of expression.

The Court emphasized that article 13 of the American Convention protects, among others, the right to request and receive information held by governmental entities. It also indicated that a positive obligation arises for the State to provide it, since “freedom of thought and expression contemplates the protection of the right to access information under the control of the State, which also clearly contains the two dimensions, individual and social, of the right to freedom of thought and expression, which must be guaranteed by the State simultaneously” [par. 4]. 

Specifically, the Court highlighted that access to information related to environmental matters must be explicitly promoted. In addition, the Court emphasized that every person has the right to know how the information was collected and the source where it comes from. It also affirmed that the right of access to public information strengthens the exercise of other fundamental rights, such as freedom of the press. In this sense, for the Court, the right of access to information fosters citizen participation, transparency, and oversight of public entities.

The Court also recalled the statements from the Organization of American States (OAS), which has urged Member States to adopt measures in their legislation to facilitate the availability of public information in electronic or digital form. Moreover, the tribunal reiterated the progressive nature of the right of access to information. In its opinion, the Administration is obliged to inform the people about its actions and progressively make the information in its possession accessible through technological means. Still, the Court acknowledged that this modernization should respect a reasonable and proportional criteria, since the State, when acquiring such software, needs to take into account the “budgetary, technological and human resources capacities of each Administration,” [par. 4]; basically, facilitating access to information cannot neglect the provision of other fundamental public services.

Regarding this particular case, the Court condemned the Municipality’s request to the plaintiff to make appointments in diverse offices in order to access the information and it held that the journalist never received the demanded data.

The Court concluded that the journalist’s fundamental rights had been violated, especially the right of access to public information. Consequently, it ordered the Municipality to disclose the requested information within five days.

Nevertheless, the Court also mentioned that the disclosure should safeguard sensitive and confidential data, protected both in the Constitution of Costa Rica and in the Law on the Protection of the Individual against the Processing of Personal Data (Law No. 8.968).