Chile, Court of Appeals of Santiago, 20 July 2022, No. ‎127-2022‎

Case overview

Country
Chile
Case ID
No. ‎127-2022‎
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Court of Appeals of Santiago
Deciding body (Original)
Corte de Apelaciones de Santiago
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Administrative Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
General Summary

The Administrative attorney, in representation of the Ministry of ‎Health, filed an illegality action, which sought to annul an ‎administrative act, against a decision issued by the Council for ‎Transparency. This decision ordered the Plaintiff to provide ‎information, to a Petitioner, related to the number of ICU beds ‎occupied each month by COVID-19 diagnosed patients from January ‎‎2021 to November 2021, distinguishing between fully vaccinated ‎people, people with two doses, people with one dose and ‎unvaccinated individuals. The Plaintiff alleged that there were ‎records related to deaths, ICU beds and vaccinated people but that ‎the databases were not constructed in the requested manner, the ‎information was stored by different state organs in unconnected ‎databases. Hence, for the Plaintiff, the information did not exist as ‎such to be delivered and, thus, it did not have any legal duty to ‎disclose it.‎

For the Court, the arguments of the Plaintiff were contradicting, as it ‎stated that information did not exist, but also stated that the ‎information was in different databases and that there would be a ‎difficulty to fulfill the request. Hence, according to the Court, the ‎Plaintiff had the duty to answer the request and provide the ‎information, in accordance with the principles of publicity, ‎transparency and free access to information, which are key for a ‎democratic control on behalf of citizens. Limitations to these ‎principles, for the Court, had to be exceptional and narrow. ‎Consequently, it ruled against the Plaintiff.‎

Facts of the case
  • ‎In 2021, a Petitioner exercised his/her right to access to ‎public information, requesting the Ministry of Health data ‎related to COVID-19 patients in ICU beds and their ‎vaccination status.‎
  • The Ministry of Health denied the request. This decision was ‎reviewed by the Council for Transparency, which, on ‎February 28, 2022, ordered the disclosure.‎ ‎
  • The Ministry of Health filed an illegality action against this ‎administrative act and on July 20, 2022, the Appeals Court ‎rejected the action.‎
Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
The Plaintiff requested the annulment of the administrative decision ‎of the Council of Transparency.‎
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a qualified entity in the interest of a specific group of claimants for the purpose of injunctive measures or other remedies, including the annulment of administrative decisions, for the protection of a more general collective interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Public
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court reasoned that authorities had the constitutional duty to ‎provide public information of their actions. For the Court, this duty ‎derived from the principle of publicity, transparency, and free access ‎to information. In the present case, the denial of the information ‎related to ICU beds for COVID-19 patients and their vaccination ‎status was unlawful, as the reasons for the denial were contradicting. ‎Pursuant to the Court’s reasoning, the Plaintiff gave two sets of ‎reasons that could not be true at the same time: that the information ‎did not exist when the petitioner requested it and that the information ‎did exist in different databases that did not connect with each other, ‎making it impossible to provide the information as requested. For the ‎Court, these reasons were not enough to not fulfill their constitutional ‎duties and authorities had the obligation to cross the information and ‎construct a report that satisfied the request.‎

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court concluded that authorities failed in their constitutional ‎duties and rejected the illegality action. ‎

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Freedom of information
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Right to petition and to access to information, Art. 19.14, Chilean Constitution‎
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. freedom of expression / right to information
General principle applied
Reasonableness
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court found that the arguments of the Plaintiff failed to meet ‎reasonable standards, considering there was no coherence in the ‎reasons they gave for denying the petition. They alleged the ‎information did not exist and, also, that it was in unconnected ‎databases. Instead, for the Court, the Plaintiff failed to follow ‎equitable standards such as the principle of transparency, publicity ‎and the free access to information, key for effective democratic ‎control.‎

Author of the case note
Valentina del Sol Salazar Rivera, Instructor, Externado University of Colombia