The Milei administration enacted changes to the Public Information Access Law by redefining the terminology and placing limits on access to private information.
Decree 780/2024 published Monday in the Official Gazette modified Article 1 of Law 27,275 in a portion referencing requests made in what it called “good faith.” “The violation of the principle of good faith committed by all intervening actors is contemplated in Article 10 of the country’s civil and commercial code,” was the highlighted segment.
In order to enact these changes, the government also modified the concept and reach of what it called “public information.” “Information of private nature that was either generated, obtained, transformed, controlled, or guarded by human or legal persons, as well as information that lacks compelling public interest and is unrelated to the pubic duties of the individuals listed in Article 7 of Law 27,275 and its modifications, is not considered public information.”
Changes were also made to the definition of “document.”
“The definition of document established in Law 27,275 and its modifications must be understood in reference to all records created, controlled, or guarded, within the realms of state activity. Preparatory deliberations and working papers, as well as preliminary examinations of a matter, will not be considered public documents,” they clarified.
Requirements on how to fill out a request for public information were established in Article 4. In the case of a “human person,” what is needed is a first and last name, a DNI number, an address and an email. For a “legal person,” different requirements were established.
“When a legal person is involved, a tax ID number is required as well as the identification of its representative according to terms laid out in point a). In addition, you need a copy of the current document verifying that they are the legal representative, or authorizing someone to that effect,” they specified.
In Article 8 regarding exceptions, they will be inapplicable to information that, due to their “specificity,” can be used to “identify a person’s routines, movements, and locations.” They are also applicable when the spread or disclosure of this information can “either directly or indirectly cause damage or harm, or is connected to criminal complaints or ongoing investigations which, if made public, can place accusers, witnesses, victims, and any other person involved in harm’s way.”
On the other hand, it was established that they will be inapplicable when the holder of the information “has consented to it being made public, or when the information is strictly related to the performance of government officials.”
The document stated that exceptions are also void in certain legal cases. “Exceptions contained in this article will not be applicable in legal cases investigating or trying serious human rights violations, as well as cases of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.”
Finally, the government established that the platform for requesting public information will contain a registry in which requesting parties will have to identify themselves, the contents of their request, and the answer they were given. They explained that this is in the interest of “expediting and easing responses to new requests that coincide with others made previously.”
“For statistical purposes, the Public Information Access Agency will take into consideration requests that are repeated and either generate unnecessary administrative work for the subjects in question, or constitute an abuse of the right to access public information,” the administration highlighted.