Ever since the 2002 issuing of the Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Government Public Information, progress has been made – albeit, insufficient – in the implementation of a political system that allows an effective accountability and promotes government responsibility without violating other principles, such as respect for privacy or national security. Under this perspective, the legislative project unanimously approved by the Senate in 2012 seemed promising, given the fact that it enhanced the Federal Institute of Information Access and Data Protection (IFAI) as a body with powers beyond the overused rhetoric dealing with autonomy. In the initiative sent to the Chamber of Deputies, several traits that would strengthen IFAI’s independence were established, in addition to including (within a law-abiding scheme) entities that have taken advantage of public finances: unions and political parties. Nevertheless, in this last issue, the Senate commissions – dominated by PRI legislators – have found legal subterfuges that, if applied, would turn accountability into a simulation. These and other issues could transform a good initiative coming from the Senate into a legislative eyesore conceived by Deputies.
Although IFAI’s constitutional autonomy is kept within the initiative modified by the Transparency, Anti-Corruption, Constitutional Matters and Parliamentary Regime, Ruling and Practices commission, the possibility for the Legal Counsel of the Presidency, the Federal Attorney’s Office, Bank of Mexico and the National Commission on Human Rights may challenge the Institute’s decisions before the Supreme Court, thereby ending its irrevocable instance. As if “sharpening IFAI’s teeth” in the face of other institutions was not enough, the initiative project increases the Executive Power’s influence on the organization through the process of appointing its counselors, since the President may object some of the candidates named by the Senate up to two occasions, that is to say, the Presidency is assuming a sui generis role as a counterweight for the Legislative Power. Lastly, political parties are excluded as obliged subjects before IFAI, preserving the current supervision scheme that is responsibility of the Federal Electoral Institute – where parties are both judge and defendant -, while unions are placed as particulars submitted to data protection mechanisms “in charge of the public entity that the law may set forth”. Instead of correcting shortcomings and omissions in the current law, the struggle is clearly oriented in diminishing the relevance of transparency. Is the path onwards or backwards?
Regardless of the aforementioned, the legislative process obtained in commissions is not simple at all, especially since they are Constitutional reforms. The initiative’s retro-activeness may unify the votes of both leftwing as well as PAN, preventing the Senate from reaching enough votes. Even if it managed to succeed, it is foreseeable that the Senate will reject a project that opposes its original proposal. Beyond the parliamentary prospective, it is appropriate to question the reasons for this attempt to functionally limit IFAI and shield the Presidency, unions and political parties. A “toothless” and weakened IFAI would be contradictory (to say the least) with the reformist rhetoric of the current government, in which administrative efficiency and guaranteeing basic civic rights are the ultimate goals. The need to litigate and prove tribunals that some information belongs to public order does not fit in the construction of an informed society. Likewise, excluding political actors from their accountability obligations leaves the door open for irresponsible and unpunished actions by public officers although it is currently legitimated by the Constitution.
CIDAC
Comments