A citizen of San Lorenzo in Paraguay was concerned about the city's hiring and contracting procedures so requested information on the identities and remuneration of city officials and contractors. The city refused to provide the information on grounds of personal privacy, and a legal challenge was rejected on the same grounds. This is the first access to information case to reach the Supreme Court of Paraguay, which is one of a few countries in Latin America that have yet to explicitly recognize the right of access to government information.
In May 2007, José Daniel Vargas Telles, a resident of the City of San Lorenzo, filed a freedom of information (FoI) request with the city administration. In it he asked for access to the names, titles, and salary levels of city officials and contractors. Vargas suspected nepotism and abusive practices in the hiring of city employees and contractors. He relied on Article 28 of the national constitution, which guarantees everyone free access to "public sources of information." In late June 2007, the city denied the request, arguing that the disclosure of the requested information would violate the officials' right to privacy.
Vargas took the matter to the courts, assisted by the office of the national Public Defender (ombudsperson). He claimed that remuneration of public officials is a matter of public record and therefore salary data should be made available to the public, proactively or upon request. In fact, several central and local authorities in the country already make such information available on the Internet.
Both the first instance and appeal courts sided with the city administration, finding that the salary information at issue was protected from disclosure by personal data protection laws. The appeal court held, in addition, that Vargas had failed to prove that he suffered any personal harm from the denial of information.
Vargas and the Public Defender are currently challenging the appeal judgment before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. They argue that the appeal court misapplied data protection laws and violated the applicant's constitutional right of access to "public sources of information," including information of public interest held by the government.
Paraguay has yet to adopt a freedom of information law or otherwise guarantee an express and general right of access to government information. At least one appeal court has recognized the right, but this is the first time the issue has reached the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction.
In February 2010, the Justice Initiative filed a "friend of the court" brief on the case with the Supreme Court of Paraguay. The brief provides comparative information on the status of the right of access in Latin America, the relevant jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, and the practices of other nations regarding disclosure of official remuneration data. Members of a regional coalition of free expression groups endorsed the Justice Initiative brief through a statement filed separately with the Court.
Status of the right to know. The right of access to state-held information is well-established in international and regional law and practice.
Claude Reyes impact. The 2006 Claude Reyes judgment of the Inter-American Court, which recognized the right of access as an element of the fundamental right to freedom of expression, is directly binding on States Parties to the American Convention, including Paraguay. National courts are required to give effect to the right.
Access to salary data. Many democratic countries disclose the actual salaries of senior officials, and at least the salary levels of most civil servants and other persons paid by the state budget.
May 4, 2007. Vargas files FOI request with the City of San Lorenzo.
June 21, 2007. The City denies the request.
October 26, 2007. Vargas files legal action to compel disclosure by the City.
March 13, 2008. The First Instance Court refuses the claim on privacy grounds.
July 16, 2008. The Appeals Court confirms the first instance ruling.
August 5, 2008. Vargas and the Public Defender's Office file an extraordinary action of inconstitutionality with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court.
December 31, 2009. The Supreme Court admits the case for full trial.
February 25, 2010. The Justice Initiative files a "friend of the court" brief with the Supreme Court.