Federal Institute for Access to Public Information MEXICO Juan Pablo Guerrero May 2005 Right to Information Act in Mexico: a preliminary assessment of impacts and limits (May 2005) Contents of Presentation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Transparency and Access to Government Information Act (RTI) RTI Objectives & Main Characteristics The Commission: Federal Institute for Access to Public Information (IFAI) Commission’s Tasks & Characteristics Mandatory Information on Internet Transparency Obligations: Impact of publicity Evaluation of Transparency obligations Information requests Requests by subject Requesters profile Requests by Agency Appeals to the IFAI Most popular Government agencies Type of answers by agencies and departments Appeals presented to IFAI Success stories Resistance Potential Impacts & challenges Transparency and Right to Government Information Act (RTI) • Civil Society Participation (Oaxaca group) • Three initiatives (PRD, Executive, Oaxaca Group) • Unanimous Congressional approval (April, 2002; law in June 2003) • Regulates two civil rights: freedom of information & respect to privacy rights RTI Objectives - Mexico • • • • • • Easy, free & quick access Transparency in Public Affairs Enforcement of Privacy Rights Enhance Accountability Foster Democracy & the Rule of Law Set rules for Archives RTI: Main characteristics • • • • • • • • • Government information on Internet (proactive) Establishes classification of information Access to & protection of personal data Archives organization No need for ID nor justification of requests Universal, free & easy access Administrative Court (enforcement & appeals) Transparency & Disclosure mandate Requesters can appeal to Judiciary The Commission: Federal Institute for Access to Public Information (IFAI) • Authority in the Executive Branch (Federal P.A.) • Five Commissioners: President appointments, Senate approval • Tenure, Seven years appointment • Autonomy: Decision, budget, administrative and legal • Rulings are final for Federal Executive Branch IFAI’s main tasks: 1. Privacy rights enforcement 2. Enforcement of transparency obligations 3. Rule on appeals (transparency mandate) 4. Disseminate enhance benefits culture accountability of of FOIA transparency and & IFAI’s Budget 2003-2005 (USD millions) CONCEPT SALARIES 2003 2004 2005 12.95 13.60 13.60 MATERIALES & PROVISIONS 0.67 0.35 0.54 GENERAL SERVICES 4.10 4.25 6.75 0 0 0.16 1.90 1.25 0.80 0 0.90 1.35 19.60 19.60 21.85 TRANSFERECES EQUIPMENT PUBLIC WORKS Total IFAI’s Budget 2003-2005 160,000,000 140,000,000 120,000,000 100,000,000 2003 80,000,000 2004 2005 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 Servicios personales Materiales y Suministros Servicios Generales Transferencias Bienes Muebles e Inmuebles Obras públicas IFAI Organization PLENO SECRETARÍA EJECUTIVA DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE ADMINISTRACIÓN SECRETARÍA DE ACUERDOS D.G. DE VINCULACIÓN CON ESTADOS Y MUNICIPIOS DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE ASUNTOS JURÍDICOS D.G. DE INFORMÁTICA Y SISTÉMAS DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE COMUNICACIÓN SOCIAL D.G. DE CLASIFICACIÓN Y DATOS PERSONALES D.G.DE ATENCIÓN A LA SOCIEDAD Y RELACIONES INTERNACIONALES D.G. DE COORDINACIÓN Y VIGILANCIA DE LA A.P.F. DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE ESTUDIOS E INVESTIGACIÓN Personnel at IFAI 80 70 60 Personas 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pleno S. Ejecutiva S. Acuerdos OIC Proactive Disclosure Information on Internet • Directory, organizational structure, tasks, services • Salaries & benefits of public officials • Budget, public finances • Contracts, procurement, concessions, permits, authorizations • Subsidies, Citizen participation mechanisms • Audit results • Legal framework (regulations) Proactive disclosure: Impact of Publicity TIPE OF INFORMATION EVALUATION (Dic. 2003) PUBLIC EVALUATION (May 2004) PUBLIC EVALUATION (Feb. 2005) */ Finances (38%) 19.6 45.7 85.1 Regulatory (18%) 51.6 79.6 96.6 Decision making process (14%) 17.5 35.4 84.2 Society institutional links (18%) 54.3 81.9 96.4 Internal Organization (6%) 78.2 96.6 98.6 Basic information (6%) 65.4 95.0 98.8 General average 36.6 62.8 90.8 (weighted value) */ Date of evaluation is variable, it does not correspond to the same period of time to every Federal Department. Evaluation of Proactive Disclosure by Some Federal Departments (2003-05) Federal Departments First Evaluation (Dec. 2003) Second Public evaluation (May 2004) Third Public evaluation (Feb. 2005)*/ Housing (Infonavit) 12 30 19 Defense (SEDENA) 20 30 77 Agriculture (SAGARPA) 26 36 97 Deregulation Commission (COFEMER) 29 77 100 Intelligence Agency (CISEN) 30 31 70 Department of Justice (PGR) 31 42 100 Treasury Department (SHCP) 34 93 100 PEMEX 35 63 100 Electricity Commission (LFC) 36 50 82 CIDE 41 32 93 Arts (INBA) 44 34 85 Foreign Affairs (SRE) 67 37 100 Federal Police (PFP) NA 37 100 */ Date of evaluation is variable, it does not correspond to the same period of time to every Federal Department. NA: Not available. Note: Nowadays all results are public. Information requests up to March 31th. 2005 INFORMATION REQUESTS, MARCH 31th. 2005 5,000 4,768 4,537 4,500 4,177 4,007 4,000 3,735 3,500 3,216 3,000 3,217 3,070 2,891 2,865 2,500 3,061 2,940 3,531 3,561 3,859 3,128 3,118 2,255 2,027 2,000 1,500 3,389 3,699 1,464 1,000 500 0 Jun- Jul- Ago- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dic- Ene- Feb- Mar- Abr- May- Jun- Jul- Ago- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dic- Ene- Feb- Mar03 03 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 Requests by subject 2003-2004 SUBJECTS ON INFORMATION REQUESTS 35.0% 32.2% 30.0% 25.7% 25.0% 20.0% 18.9% 2003 17.0% 15.0% 2004 12.4% 11.3% 10.0% 8.0% 10.5% 10.2% 7.9% 7.5% 6.3% 5.5% 5.7% 4.4% 5.0% 4.3% 3.3% AL SO N R O TT H ER D AT A S IT D D G ET FO ’ BU AU PE C U IT ST O N TI TR AC O N TS AC BS SU G O PR IN TI V . IE ID AG BY AT ED ER ’G EN FO IN IN R LA SA AN D IT S EF N BE S EN C S IE E R TU C U ST R AL N IO AT IZ AN G R O Y 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 7.9% Requests by subject (2003) Information about Institution's Activities, Projects/ Programmes 16% Information Generated by the Institution 23% Personal Data 4% Audit 1% Budget/ Public Finance 10% Contracts 7% Other 16% Salaries & Benefits of Public Officials 6% Organizational Structure 12% Subsidies, 5% Requests by subject (2004) Information about Institution's Activities, Projects/ Programmes 23% Personal Data 9% Budget/ Public Finance 4% Contracts 11% Subsidies 5% Information Generated by the Institution 33% Salaries & Benefits of Public Officials 6% Organizational Structure 9% Requests up to April 2005 Requests, Responses & Appeals (10/mar/2005) CONCEPT 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL Total of requests of information 24,097 37,732 12,447 74,276 Appeals to IFAI 636 1,430 525 2,591 Proportion appeals/ requests 2.6 3.8 4.2 3.5 INFORMATION INEXISTENCE 2003 % 2004 % 2005 % Information inexistence 2.6 3.4 3.8 Appeals for inexistence ---- 8.1 9.7 Requesters profile March 31th, 2005 Gender 90% 80% 70.1% 65.2% 70% 61.5% 60% 50% FEMALE MALE 40% 38.5% 30% 34.8% 29.9% 20% 10% 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Requesters profile March 31th. 2005 AGE 22.0% 21.3% 20.0% 19.4% 19.3% 18.5% 17.3% 16.3% 14.8% 15.0% 14.2% 10.8% 10.4% 10.1% 10.0% 10.3% 9.4% 9.3% 7.6% 6.9% 6.6% 5.4% 5.1% 5.0% 4.6% 4.5% 3.7% 2.6% 2.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1% 2.5% 1.9% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.1% 2.3% 1.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% <18 2003 18-19 20-24 2004 25-29 30-34 2005 35-39 40-44 EDAD 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70 y más Requesters profile March 31th , 2005 OCCUPATION Entrepreneur 40.0% 30.0% 22.8% 20.0% 19.9% 18% Other 25.8% 24% 25.2% 10.0% 38% 29.0% Academic 33.4% 0.0% 8% 9.0% 10.0% 12% 12.5% 12.4% Media 2003 Government 2004 2005 Requests by State March 31th. 2005 ENTITIES THAT TOGETHER HAVE MORE THAN 75% OF THE INFORMATION REQUESTS 60% 50.4% 49.6% 50% 46.4% PORCENTAJE 40% 30% 20% 14.1% 13.0% 10.6% 10% 4.0% 3.4% 2.9% 3.1% 2.9%2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% 2.2%2.2% 3.3% 2.6%2.1% 3.0% 2.3% 2.0% 1.9% 1.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0% Distrito Federal México 2003 Jalisco Puebla Nuevo León 2004 Chihuahua Veracruz Tamaulipas Baja California 2005 Appeals filed to Commission (IFAI) March 31th. 2005 APPEALS TO THE IFAI 200 197 180 174 166 160 145 159 146 150 140 136 128 123 120 139 119 119 103 100 89 83 80 69 86 76 73 60 44 40 20 17 0 Jun03 Jul- Ago- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dic- Ene- Feb- Mar- Abr- May- Jun03 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 04 04 Jul- Ago- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dic- Ene- Feb- Mar04 04 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 Agencies with highest number of requests (March 2005) SEDESOL IFAI SAGARPA PEMEX SE SAT SER CFE ASA PRESIDENCIA Serie1 SEDENA SS SCT PGR SEGOB SFP SEMARNAT SEP IMSS SHCP 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Agencies with highest number of requests (March, 2005) The 20 Agencies with the highest number of requests 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 IMSS 4,000 4,500 4,092 HACIENDA 4.059 2,868 SEP 2,478 SEMARNAT FUNCIÓN PÚBLICA 2,063 1,960 GOBERNACIÓN PGR 1,906 1,859 SCT SALUD 1,599 1,543 SEDENA PRESIDENCIA 1,519 CFE 1,484 ASA 1,461 1,399 SRE SAT 1,301 1,215 PEMEX ECONOMÍA 1,196 SAGARPA 1,184 1,167 IFAI 1,074 SEDESOL 2003 2004 2005 Answers by agencies (March, 2005) Type of answers by agencies Not in the Law Framework 2% Available To public 13% Negative 3% Not competence 14% Won’t suite to the request 3% Delivery Notification 2% Notification of place & Date of delivery 2% Inexistence 3% Information on Electronic format 58% Appeals filed to Commission IFAI (2003-2004) Appeals decisions (1730) Total % Confirms denial of access 16 Rules in favor of access (partial/total) 45 Access granted before IFAI’s ruling (partial / total) 11 Ruling based on procedural factors Total 28 100 Appeals by Commissioner presenting the case (2003-2004) Commissioner presenting the case AGRV HAAA JOLP JPGA MML TOTAL 19 19 18 26 18 100 18.5 15.5 22 24 20 100 15.5 29.5 14 20 21 100 17 19 21 23 20 100 23 25 17 15 20 100 Confirms denial of access Rules in favor of access (partial/total) Access granted before IFAI’s ruling Access granted (partial/total) Ruling based on procedural factors Success stories I • Savings & Loans Security Commission: accountability in banking system rescue • Public Funds & Trusts (transparency vs banking secrecy) • Personal access to medical files Success stories II • Assumptions and notes on calculations on economic projections (Treasury) • Violators, infractions & fines for braking federal regulation (Environment, Transportation, etc.) Success stories III • Decision making process in Mexico – Cuba crisis • PEMEX-GATE: public version of law suit files • Files on political repression assassinations in 1971 (genocide) & Success Stories IV • Transparency in military procurement • Public resources auditing results • Public version of administrative processes ongoing Resistance I • Law-suits against FOIA (Departments, agencies) • Law-suits against IFAI ruling (public servants) • Inexistent information (archive chaos) Resistance II • Lack of compliance with Commission rulings • New legislation initiatives with transparency exemptions (National Defense, Housing, Budget, Navy Law, etc) • Handicapped Local Access Laws Impacts • Reduces Corruption (procurement) • Improves Governmental Efficiency (publics servants consumption of FOIA) • Social participation on programs & policies • Enhances Legitimacy & Confidence in Government