Global Freedom of Expression

Muñoz v. Chamber of Deputies

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Public Documents
  • Date of Decision
    September 21, 2012
  • Outcome
    Affirmed Lower Court, Access to Information Granted
  • Case Number
  • Region & Country
    Dominican Republic, Latin-America and Caribbean
  • Judicial Body
    Constitutional Court
  • Type of Law
    Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Access to Public Information
  • Tags
    Personal Data, Exceptions to the Right of Access to Information, Public Officials, Members of the Legislative Branch, Protection of sources

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

This case is available in additional languages:    View in: Español

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

A citizen of Dominican Republic made a request to the government in order to obtain information regarding the congressional advisors working for the House of Representatives. The legislative body refused to disclose their names and individual income, pending their consent.

 The Constitutional Court of Dominican Republic upheld the lower court’s judgment in favor of the citizen. Upon addressing both domestic laws and human rights standards, particularly Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Court held that the advisers’ right to privacy did not outweigh the citizen’s right to information, given that their names and income could not be deemed confidential and instead, they concerned matters of the public interest.


Muñoz, a citizen of Dominican Republic, requested information from the House of Representatives of the Congress about the number of advisors working for congressional representatives, their names, and information concerning their individual income. The legislative body provided the number of advisers, but did not disclose their names and income. It rather gave the total amount of earnings of all those advisers. In subsequent communications, the House also informed Muñoz that releasing the names required the consent of advisers.

Muñoz later filed an action against the House of Representatives, invoking his constitutional right to access public information. The High Administrative Court, sitting as a court of first instance, entered a judgment in his favor and ordered the House to disclose the information. The government then appealed the decision to the country’s Constitutional Court.

Decision Overview

In order to decide whether Muñoz was constitutionally entitled to obtain the House advisers’ names and income, the Dominican Constitutional Court held saw it necessary to balance the competing fundamental rights to information and the right to privacy. It first explained regional and international standards on the right of access to information, specifically Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which has been ratified by the Dominican Congress. The Court also referred to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on issues involving access to information. In the case of Claude Reyes v. Chile,1 the Inter-American Court explained that obtaining public information from the government is essential to strengthening democracy and that the purpose of such access is to enable citizens to monitor the use and investment of public funds in order to prevent corruption. Yet access to information is not an absolute right and must be exercised, inter alia, within a framework of respect for the right to privacy and the protection of personal data.

The Constitutional Court here found that the right to privacy did not not outweigh the right to information, given that the names and salaries of the House advisers as government employees were not confidential. According to the Court, any other interpretation would establish an unreasonable limit that would prevent citizens from monitoring the use of resources and any corruption that may be taking place in the country. It explained that when the right of access to information clashes with the right to privacy, it must be assessed whether the requested information is of public interest. Here, the information was deemed a matter of public interest because it reflected the use of public funds.

In addition, the Court noted the Dominican law that recognizes the need to release information regarding government officials. For example, Article 3 of the Access to Information Act (Ley de Acceso a la Información) requires the government to maintain an ongoing, updated information service containing “lists of officials, legislators, judges, employees, categories, job responsibilities, and remuneration, as well as a financial disclosure statement when required by law.”

  1. Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Judgment of September 19, 2006, available at 

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The decision expands the scope of the right of access to information, as it extends current standards on the disclosure of information regarding government officials.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

  • ICCPR, art. 19
  • UDHR, art. 19
  • ACHR, art. 13
  • IACtHR, Claude Reyes v. Chile, ser. C No. 151 (2006)

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Dom. Rep., Constitution of the Dominican Republic (2015), art. 2.
  • Dom. Rep., Constitution of the Dominican Republic (2015), art. 3.
  • Dom. Rep., Constitution of the Dominican Republic (2015), art. 7.
  • Dom. Rep., Constitution of the Dominican Republic (2015), art. 44.
  • Dom. Rep., Constitution of the Dominican Republic (2015), art. 49.
  • Dom. Rep., Constitution of the Dominican Republic (2015), art. 74(4).
  • Dom. Rep., Constitution of the Dominican Republic (2015), art. 75.
  • Dom. Rep., Constitution of the Dominican Republic (2015), art. 246.
  • Dom. Rep., Law 200-04, art. 17
  • Dom. Rep., Law 200-04, art. 2
  • Dom. Rep., Law 200-04, art. 18
  • Dom. Rep., Law 200-04, art. 33
  • Dom. Rep., Decree 130-05
  • Dom. Rep., Constitutional Court, TC/0011/12 (2012)

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Spain, Constitutional Court, STC 171/90 (1990)
  • Peru, Constitutional Court, 0666-96 HD/TC (1996)
  • Peru, Constitutional Court, 214-2000-HD/TC (2000)
  • Peru, Constitutional Court, 315-2000-HD/TC (2000)
  • Peru, Constitutional Court, 1797-2002-HD/TC (2002)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

The Constitutional Court is mandated to interpret and defend the Constitution of the Dominican Republic and its decisions are binding.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback