freedom of information | news | links | measuring openness

FEBRUARY 2006
New Report: The IFAI and Mexico's Culture of Transparency
A new report, released on 20 February 2006, looks at the successes of the Mexican Federal Institute for Access to Public Information (IFAI) after 4 years in existence, finding IFAI to be a model institution for other countries. The report also identifies several weaknesses of IFAI and recommends strategies for guaranteeing its independence and expand its functions within the government.
Read the full report >>

20 JANUARY 2006
New Steps Toward IFI Transparency:
The Use of Domestic Remedies
Issa Luna Pla of the Mexican non-governmental organization LIMAC reports for freedominfo.org's IFTI Watch that Mexico this week established a landmark precedent for the application of national freedom of information laws to the activities of international institutions. More >>

The Constitution was amended in 1977 to include a right of freedom of information. Article 6 says in part, "the right of information shall be guaranteed by the state."(1) The Supreme Court made a number of decisions further enhancing that right.

The Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Government Information was unanimously approved by Parliament in April 2002 and signed by President Fox in June 2002.(2) It went into effect in June 2003.

The law allows all persons to demand information in writing from federal government departments, autonomous constitutional bodies and other government bodies. Agencies must respond to requests in 20 working days.

The law creates five categories of privileged information. For these categories, information can be withheld if their release will harm the public interest. These include information on national security, public security or national defense; international relations; financial, economic or monetary stability; life, security or health of any person at risk; and verification of the observance of law, prosecution of crimes, collection of taxes, immigration or strategies in pending processes. There are an additional six categories of exempted information. These are information protected by another law that can be considered confidential or privileged, commercial secrets, preliminary findings, judicial or administrative files prior to a ruling, public servants responsibility proceedings before a ruling, and opinions in a judicial process prior to a final decision. Information can only be classified for 12 years. Information relating to "the investigation of severe violations of fundamental rights or crimes against humanity" may not be classified. Personal data is considered confidential and is not subject to the 12 year rule.

Any withholdings can be appealed to the internal unit or to the Federal Institute for Access to Public Information (IFAI).(3) The IFAI can carry out investigations and order government bodies to release information. IFAI received 2,639 appeals in 2005 (5 percent of all requests) and resolved 2,091 of them, up from 1,430 in 2004. IFAI found for the requestor in 42 percent of the cases and confirmed the agency decision in 17 percent of the cases. The rest were dismissed for administrative or other reasons. Individuals but not government bodies can appeal decisions to federal courts. There have been over 100 cases heard by the courts since 2003. Many of those cases were by banks which had been bailed out by the government, or by public bodies such as the state oil company (PEMEX) which were attempting to limit disclosure claiming commercial secrecy. The courts have generally ruled in favor of IFAI in those cases. 16 cases were brought by requestors.

The IFAI also has general duties to interpret the law, develop criteria for classified and privileged information, help create standards for archives, monitor the activities of the agencies and generally promote the law. It has set up a sophisticated electronic system for requests on the Internet called SISI for the Executive agencies and arranged with the Federal Election Institute to provide computers in their offices for individuals in remote locations to use to submit requests.(4) A review by the Annenberg School for Communications found that the IFAI played a very positive role in promoting transparency.(5)

Each body must create a liaison unit to answer requests and fulfill the other requirements of the law. They must produce a regular index of all files, including privileged or confidential files. They are required to publish an extensive amount of information on their web sites, including structure, directories, salaries of public employees, aims and objectives, audits, subsidies and contracts. They are required to set up information committees to review classification and non-disclosure of information and monitor compliance of the body.

The law has generally been hailed as a success. Human Rights Watch says that the law "dealt a major blow to [the] culture of secrecy" and describes it as "the single most unambiguous achievement in the area of human rights during the Fox presidency."(6) There has been strong and growing use of the law. There were 50,127 requests in 2005 up from 37,732 requests in 2004. 47,000 were for public information, and nearly 3,000 were by individuals asking for their personal information. Each year, over 90 percent of the requests are submitted electronically using SISI. In 2005, 34 percent of the requests were from academics, 27 percent from the general public, 18 percent from businesses, 13 percent from internal government officials, and 9 percent were from the media.

There are some problems with implementation. Some agencies and officials have filed lawsuits to oppose rulings or have not complied with IFAI rulings (about 10 so far) and many public bodies have poor archives that makes locating information difficult. Awareness of the law among the general public is growing but still somewhat low at 33 percent in 2004, up from 22 percent in 2003. 20 percent were aware of the IFAI in 2004, up from 12 percent in 2003. HRW also has expressed concern that IFAI is vulnerable to political interference, the possibility that a new administration would allow agencies to resist compliance, the lack of progress in the other branches and at the state level, and the failure of the law to apply to political parties.

There have also been legislative proposals that would undermine the law. Two Senators introduced an amendment in March 2006 that would allow agencies to appeal decisions to the courts, but would make the original requestor defend the appeal.(7) That provision was withdrawn after the IFAI publicly opposed it. A law on national security adopted in January 2005 allowed public bodies to withhold some information but the final version was amended to reflect the exemptions in the transparency law.

The transparency law also imposes privacy protection rules on federal bodies. They are required to allow access to, correct, and prevent misuse of personal information. The IFAI provides decisions and oversight. There are four initiatives currently pending in the Congress to create a separate Data Protection Act that would allow individuals to access and correct records held by public and private organizations and limit the use of their personal information. Two would appoint the IFAI as the oversight body. A project to amend Article 16 of the Constitution to recognize the right of Data Protection has been approved in the Senate.

FOI laws have been adopted in 28 states and districts and there are pending efforts in the four remaining states. Nearly all of the states have their own independent information commission.(8) There is considerable variation in the laws and many are weaker than the national law.(9) There is currently an effort to develop national minimum standards for the state laws. Over a dozen have signed up to the INFOMEX system run by the IFAI to facilitate electronic access to records.

2004 freedominfo.org Global Survey Results - Mexico

Back to top

24 JUNE 2003
MEXICO: Military Breaks Silence
El Universal newspaper (Mexico) reports that the Mexican military, in an attempt to comply with the country's new freedom of information law, has released detailed statistics on court-martials.

The Mexican Defense Department reported that since President Vicente Fox took office in 2000, there have been 299 courts-martial, including 210 convictions.

Of those proceedings, 33 were on charges of murder, 31 for insubordination, 26 for fraud, 24 for desertion, 22 for robbery and 21 for drug-related offenses.

Mexico's Federal Transparency Law went into effect June 12, requiring all branches of government to provide copies of public documents -- from government employees' salaries to details about public programs and government contracts -- within 20 days of any citizen's request.

To find out more on the Mexican Transparency law, click here.

Notes

1. Constitucion Politica de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/fed/9/default.htm

2. Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Government Information. http://www.ifai.org.mx/publicaciones/taia.pdf. For an extensive review, see Kate Doyle, In Mexico, a New Law Guarantees the Right to Know. http://www.freedominfo.org/features/20020709.htm

3. Instituto Federal de Acceso a la Información Pública Homepage http://www.ifai.org.mx/

4. http://www.informacionpublica.gob.mx/

5. Annenberg School for Communications, The Federal Institute for Access to Information and a Culture of Transparency, February 2006. http://www.pgcs.asc.upenn.edu/docs/mex_report_fiai06_english.pdf

6. Human Rights Watch, Mexico: Lost in Translation, May 2006.

7. Peligra ley de transparencia con iniciativa panista: IFAI. El Universal, 10 March 2006.

8. See Limac Asociación Civil Libertad de Información-México, http://www.limac.org.mx/

9. Human Rights Watch, id.

Back to top