Access to information in education — unjustified denial by school principalAcceso a la información en el ámbito educativo — negativa injustificada del director de colegio

Within the framework of the Social and Democratic Rule of Law, each and every public entity and body that makes up the respective administration must be subject to the implicit constitutional principles of transparency and publicity, which must be the rule for all administrative action or function. The collective organizations of Public Law—public entities—are called to be true glass houses whose interior can be scrutinized and overseen, in broad daylight, by all citizens.

Under this understanding, administrative secrecy or confidentiality (reserva administrativa) is an exception that is justified only under qualified circumstances when constitutionally relevant values and assets are thereby protected.

There are various mechanisms to achieve higher levels of administrative transparency in a given legal system, such as the statement of reasons for administrative acts, the forms of their communication—publication and notification—, the public information procedure for drafting regulations and regulatory plans, participation in the administrative procedure, administrative contracting procedures, etc. However, one of the most valuable tools for achieving that objective is the right of access to administrative information.

THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION. Article 30 of the Political Constitution guarantees free access to "administrative departments for purposes of information on matters of public interest," a fundamental right that doctrine has called the right of access to administrative archives and records; however, the most accurate name is the right of access to administrative information, since access to the physical or virtual media of public administrations is the instrument or mechanism for achieving the intended purpose, which is for citizens to obtain the information held by those administrations. It is necessary to point out that administrative information of public interest sought by a citizen is not always found in an administrative file, archive, or record. The right of access to administrative information is a control mechanism in the hands of citizens, since it allows them to exercise optimal control over legality and over the opportunity, convenience, or merit, and, in general, the effectiveness and efficiency of the administrative function deployed by the various public entities. Efficient and effective public administrations are those that submit to public control and scrutiny, but citizen control cannot exist without adequate information. In this way, a logical chain can be established between access to administrative information, knowledge and handling of it, effective and timely citizen control, and efficient public administrations. The right of access to administrative information has a deep foundation in a series of principles and values inherent to the Social and Democratic Rule of Law, which it simultaneously acts upon. Thus, effective and direct citizen participation in the management and handling of public affairs is inconceivable without a significant body of information about administrative competencies and services. Likewise, the democratic principle is strengthened when the various social, economic, and political forces and groups participate actively and in an informed manner in the formation and execution of public will. Finally, the right of access to administrative information is an indispensable tool, like so many others, for the full effectiveness of the principles of administrative transparency and publicity. The content of the right of access to administrative information is truly broad and comprises a bundle of powers held by the person exercising it, such as the following: a) access to public departments, units, offices, and buildings; b) access to physical or automated archives, records, files, and documents—databases, file systems—; c) the citizen's power to know the stored personal or nominative data that affect them in some way; d) the citizen's power to rectify or delete such data if they are erroneous, incorrect, or false; e) the right to know the content of physical or virtual documents and files; and f) the right to obtain, at their own cost, certifications or copies thereof.

TYPOLOGY OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION. A clear distinction can be made between the right of access to administrative information (a) ad extra—outside—and (b) ad intra—within—an administrative procedure. The former is granted to any person or citizen interested in accessing specific administrative information—uti universi—and the latter, only to the interested parties in a specific and concrete administrative procedure—uti singuli. Although this latter right is regulated in the General Law on Public Administration in its Sixth Chapter entitled "On access to the file and its pieces," Third Title of the Second Book, in Articles 272 to 274, there is not the slightest doubt that it has its foundation in Article 30 of the Political Constitution and, therefore, enjoys the guarantee, protection, and defense mechanisms provided for in the fundamental text (Article 48 of the Political Constitution) and developed by the Law governing procedure in this jurisdiction (Articles 29 and following). This corollary is compelled by noting the clearly insufficient, slow, and cumbersome nature of the sole protection mechanism established at the infra-constitutional level for the right of access to administrative information ad intra an administrative procedure. Indeed, Article 274 of the General Law on Public Administration provides that against the resolution denying knowledge of and access to a piece of a file, the ordinary remedies provided for by that normative body are available, that is, reconsideration (revocatoria), appeal (apelación), and, eventually, in the case of the head of the entity, renewal (reposición), without providing for an expeditious and swift channel when the remedies are declared without merit, which makes it clearly insufficient by forcing the applicant to resort to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (Article 48 of the Political Constitution) to seek the annulment of the resolution that denied them access to the administrative file, a solution that entails a high economic and temporal cost for the aggrieved party and is, by all accounts, belated.

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SUBJECTS OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION. The active subject of the right enshrined in Article 30 of the Magna Carta is any person or any citizen, so the constituent's purpose was to reduce administrative secrecy to its minimum expression and to expand administrative transparency and publicity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the constitutional text also provides for privileged institutional access to administrative information, such as that enjoyed by the investigative committees of the Legislative Assembly (Article 121, subsection 23, of the Political Constitution) for the exercise of their political control. It should be noted that privileged institutional access is regulated by infra-constitutional law for other scenarios, such as the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Articles 13 of Organic Law No. 7428 of August 26, 1994; 20, paragraph 2, of the repealed Law on Illicit Enrichment of Public Servants, No. 6872 of June 17, 1983 and its amendments), the Office of the Ombudsperson (Defensoría de los Habitantes) (Article 12, paragraph 2, of Law No. 7319 of November 17, 1992 and its amendments), the Commission to Promote Competition and the National Consumer Commission (Article 64 of Law No. 7274 of December 20, 1994), the tax administration (Articles 105, 106, and 107 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures), etc. Regarding the passive subjects of the right of access to administrative information, it must be taken into consideration that Article 30 of the Political Constitution guarantees free access to "administrative departments," meaning that the passive subjects are all public entities and their bodies, both from the Central Administration—the State or greater public entity—and from the institutional or service-based Decentralized Administration—the majority of autonomous institutions—, territorial—municipalities—, and corporate—professional associations (colegios profesionales), productive or industrial corporations such as the Sugar Cane Agro-Industrial League (Liga Agroindustrial de la Caña de Azúcar), the Coffee Institute (Instituto del Café), the Tobacco Board (Junta del Tabaco), the Rice Corporation (Corporación Arrocera), the National Livestock and Horticultural Corporations, etc.—. The right of access must be extended, passively, to public companies that assume collective organizational forms under private law through which some public administration carries out business, industrial, or commercial activity and intervenes in the economy and the market, such as the Costa Rican Oil Refinery, Public Limited Company (RECOPE), the National Power and Light Company, Public Limited Company (CNFL), Radiográfica de Costa Rica, Public Limited Company (RACSA), Correos de Costa Rica, Public Limited Company, the Heredia Public Services Company, Public Limited Company (EPSH), etc., especially when they possess information of public interest. Finally, private individuals who permanently or transiently exercise a public power or competence by virtue of legal or contractual authorization (munera pubblica), such as public service or works concessionaires, interested managers, notaries, public accountants, engineers, architects, surveyors, etc., may eventually become passive subjects when they handle or possess information—documents—of clear public interest.

OBJECT OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION. The constitutional text, in Article 30, refers to free access to "administrative departments," but unrestricted access to the physical facilities of administrative units or offices would be useless and insufficient to achieve the purpose of having informed citizens knowledgeable about administrative management. Consequently, a teleological or axiological hermeneutics of the constitutional norm must lead to the conclusion that citizens or people can access any information held by the respective public entities and bodies, regardless of its medium, whether documentary—files, records, archives, file systems—, electronic or computerized—databases, electronic files, automated file systems, diskettes, compact discs—, audiovisual, magnetophonic, etc.

INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC LIMITS OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION. Regarding the intrinsic limits to the essential content of the right of access to administrative information, we have the following: 1) The purpose of the right is "information on matters of public interest," so that when the administrative information sought does not concern a matter of such nature, the right is nullified and cannot be accessed. 2) The second limit consists of what is established in paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution, stipulating "State secrets are exempt." State secrecy as a limit to the right of access to administrative information is a matter reserved to law (Article 19, paragraph 1, of the General Law on Public Administration); however, more than fifty years have passed since the Constitution came into effect, and the legislative omission in issuing a law on state secrets and classified matters persists. This legislative gap has obviously caused serious uncertainty and has fostered the custom contra legem of the Executive Branch to classify, by executive decree, in a specific and circumstantial manner, certain matters as reserved or classified for constituting, in its understanding, a State secret. Regarding the scope, extent, and reach of State secrecy, doctrine is unanimous in accepting that it comprises aspects such as national security (internal or external), national defense against aggressions that threaten the sovereignty and independence of the State, and foreign relations conducted between the State and the rest of the subjects of Public International Law (see Article 284 of the Criminal Code, upon defining the crime of "disclosure of secrets"). It is not idle to distinguish between secrecy for objective and material reasons (ratione materia), referring to the three aspects indicated above (national security, national defense, and foreign relations), and the secrecy imposed on public officials or servants (ratione personae) who, by reason of the exercise of their functions, learn of certain types of information regarding which they must observe a duty of secrecy and confidentiality (see Article 337 of the Criminal Code upon defining and punishing the crime of "divulging secrets"). State secrecy is regulated in the body of law in a disjointed, dispersed, and imprecise manner (e.g., General Police Law No. 7410 of May 26, 1994, classifying the reports and documents of the Directorate of State Security as confidential and, eventually, declarable as State secret by the President of the Republic—Article 16—; the General Civil Aviation Law regarding certain agreements of the Technical Council of Civil Aviation—Article 303—, etc.). State secrecy, insofar as it constitutes an exception to the constitutional principles or values of transparency and publicity of public powers and their management, must be interpreted and applied restrictively at all times. Concerning the extrinsic limitations or limits of the right of access to administrative information, we have the following: 1) Article 28 of the Political Constitution establishes morality and public order as an extrinsic limit of any right. 2) Article 24 of the Political Constitution guarantees all persons a sphere of intangible privacy from other legal subjects, such that intimate, sensitive, or nominative data that a public entity or body has collected, processed, and stored, because it appears in its archives, records, and physical or automated files, cannot be accessed by any person, as this would imply an unconstitutional external intrusion or interference. Obviously, the foregoing is even more applicable when the citizen has made confidential information known to a public administration, because it is required, for the purpose of obtaining a specific result or benefit. In reality, this limitation is closely linked to the first intrinsic limit indicated, since, very probably, in such a case, the information sought does not concern matters of public but rather private interest. Closely linked to this limitation are banking secrecy, understood as the duty imposed on every financial intermediary entity not to reveal the information and data it possesses about its clients for any banking transaction or banking contract entered into with them, especially regarding checking accounts, since Article 615 of the Commercial Code expressly enshrines it for that scenario, and the industrial, commercial, or economic secrecy of companies regarding certain industrial ideas, products, or procedures and their financial, credit, and tax statements. There will be situations in which information about a private individual held by a public entity or body may have, especially when combined with that of other private individuals, a clear public dimension and vocation, circumstances that must be progressively and casuistically identified by this Constitutional Court. 3) The investigation of crimes, when dealing with criminal investigations carried out by administrative or judicial police bodies, for the purpose of guaranteeing the accuracy and success of the investigation and, above all, respecting the presumption of innocence, honor, and privacy of the persons involved.

From the statement of proven facts, it clearly emerges that the respondent authority incurred the alleged violation of the right of access to administrative information. In this regard, note that in response to a very specific request for information filed by the plaintiff on October 7, 2005, the Director of the Professional Technical High School of Siquirres (Colegio Técnico Profesional de Siquirres), in a brief dated the 19th of the same month, responded to said request with evasions. In that sense, it is proven in the case file that, in response to the petitioner's request to be provided a report on the attendance of all the Educational Center's staff during the 2004 and 2005 school years and copies of the permits, absences, justifications, and attendance control cards for all staff of said High School during those periods, the respondent authority merely indicated that the reports were presented to the Supervising Advisor as part of its functions as head of the Institution, and that, in guarantee of the right to privacy of the officials making up the High School's staff, he had to present a written authorization from each teacher, with a copy of their identity card, stating their agreement to the delivery of copies of their personal files. On this particular point, this Constitutional Court considers that the plaintiff is correct in pointing out that they never requested copies of the personal files of the other teachers of the Professional Technical High School of Siquirres, but merely requested an attendance report for all the staff of that Educational Center during the 2004 and 2005 school years, supported by suitable documents, namely, copies of permits, absences, justifications, and attendance control cards. In the opinion of this Chamber, given the possibility that—individually—copies of documents contained in the officials' files could be classified as confidential or protected by the right to privacy, it fell to the administrative authority to discriminate the information that could be provided to the plaintiff, and regarding the rest, to indicate that they request the interested party's authorization to provide it. In this case, it is observed that the administrative authority did not make that effort to discriminate information and unjustifiably denied everything requested by the petitioner regarding the attendance of the High School staff. In this regard, the Chamber finds no reason to have denied the plaintiff a general attendance report for the Center's staff during the 2004 and 2005 school years, because it is not confidential or private information that reveals confidential or sensitive data from the standpoint of individuals' right to privacy. This is so much the case that the respondent authority itself acknowledged in the brief of October 19, 2005, that such reports are presented to the Supervising Advisor. Hence, it could not be claimed that said reports contain confidential data. For their part, regarding the request for the permits granted by the competent authorities of the Ministry of Public Education for the activities held during 2005, specifically on May 2, 4, and 26, and August 25, 2005, and the circulars issued by the High School Director regarding those activities, the respondent authority merely indicated to the plaintiff that they had to be sure that each and every one of the activities carried out by the Institution had the respective permit from the Supervising Advisor. In the opinion of this Constitutional Court, the foregoing confirms the violation of the right of access to administrative information. Note that the petitioner did not request an opinion from the respondent Director regarding those permits, but rather, precisely, the documentary support to allow them to ascertain the existence or not of the permits allegedly granted by the competent authorities of the Ministry of Public Education for holding said activities. Given that the respondent authority merely, despite what was clearly requested (permits and circulars), asserts without more that said permits exist, this Chamber considers that the petitioner was not provided the information they requested. Something similar can be noted regarding the dance activity organized by Banco Nacional in the High School's facilities on August 25, 2005. Regarding this point, the petitioner requested a report on what happened on that occasion and the actions taken by the High School authorities in relation to those events, for the benefit of the students. In response to that request, the respondent authority merely questioned the plaintiff for not having reported what allegedly happened at that activity to the Guidance Department in charge of disciplinary actions for High School students, but did not provide the requested report, nor indicate whether or not measures had been ordered in relation to what happened. Finally, it is observed that in the brief dated October 19, 2005, the respondent authority omitted any reference related to the request made by the plaintiff regarding the vehicle entry and exit control sheets. Given these circumstances, in this case, the alleged violation of the right of access to administrative information, recognized in Article 30 of the Political Constitution, was constituted.

As a corollary of the foregoing, it is imperative to declare the appeal granted with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part (parte dispositiva) of this judgment.

Public administrations must create and foster permanent and fluid channels of communication or exchange of information with the governed and the mass media in order to encourage greater direct and active participation in public management and to give effect to the principles of evaluation of results and accountability currently incorporated into our constitutional text (article 11 of the Political Constitution). Under this understanding, administrative secrecy or confidentiality is an exception that is justified only under qualified circumstances when constitutionally relevant values and assets are protected by it. Various mechanisms exist to achieve higher levels of administrative transparency in a given legal system, such as the statement of reasons for administrative acts, the methods of their communication—publication and notification—, the public information process for the drafting of regulations and regulatory plans, participation in the administrative procedure, administrative contracting procedures, etc.; however, one of the most valuable tools for achieving that objective is the right of access to administrative information.

**THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.** Article 30 of the Political Constitution guarantees free access to "administrative departments for purposes of information on matters of public interest," a fundamental right that doctrine has called the right of access to administrative archives and records; however, the more accurate name is the right of access to administrative information, since access to the material or virtual supports of public administrations is the instrument or mechanism for achieving the intended purpose, which is for the governed to become aware of the information held by those administrations. It must be noted that the administrative information of public interest sought by an individual is not always found in an administrative file, archive, or record. The right of access to administrative information is a control mechanism in the hands of the governed, since it allows them to exercise optimal control over the legality and the opportunity, convenience, or merit and, in general, over the efficacy and efficiency of the administrative function carried out by the various public entities. Efficient and effective public administrations are those that submit to public control and scrutiny, but citizen control cannot exist without adequate information. In this way, a logical chain can be established between access to administrative information, knowledge and handling of it, effective or timely citizen control, and efficient public administrations. The right of access to administrative information has a deep foundation in a series of principles and values inherent to the Social and Democratic State under the Rule of Law, which, at the same time, it gives effect to. Thus, effective and direct citizen participation in the management and handling of public affairs is inconceivable without a significant body of information about administrative competencies and services; likewise, the democratic principle is strengthened when the various social, economic, and political forces and groups participate actively and informedly in the formation and execution of public will. Finally, the right of access to administrative information is an indispensable tool, like many others, for the full effectiveness of the principles of administrative transparency and publicity. The content of the right of access to administrative information is truly broad and consists of a bundle of powers held by the person exercising it, such as the following: a) access to public departments, agencies, offices, and buildings; b) access to archives, records, files, and physical or automated documents—databases, files—; c) the power of the governed to know the personal or nominative data stored that affect them in any way; d) the power of the governed to rectify or delete that data if it is erroneous, incorrect, or false; e) the right to know the content of physical or virtual documents and files; and f) the right to obtain, at their own cost, certifications or copies thereof.

**TYPOLOGY OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.** A clear distinction can be drawn between the right of access to administrative information (a) ad extra—outside—and (b) ad intra—inside—an administrative procedure. The former is granted to any person or individual interested in accessing specific administrative information—uti universi—and the latter, only to the parties interested in a concrete and specific administrative procedure—uti singuli. Although this latter right is regulated in the General Law of Public Administration in its Sixth Chapter entitled "On access to the file and its pieces," Third Title of the Second Book in articles 272 to 274, there is no doubt whatsoever that it is grounded in article 30 of the Political Constitution and, therefore, enjoys the mechanisms of guarantee, protection, and defense provided for in the fundamental text (article 48 of the Political Constitution) and developed by the Law governing procedure in this jurisdiction (articles 29 and following). This corollary is required when noting the clearly insufficient, slow, and cumbersome nature of the sole protection mechanism, established at the infra-constitutional level, for the right of access to administrative information ad intra an administrative procedure. Indeed, article 274 of the General Law of Public Administration provides that against the resolution denying knowledge of and access to a piece of a file, the ordinary remedies provided for by that body of law are available, that is, revocation, appeal, and, eventually, if involving the highest authority, reconsideration, without providing an expedited and swift path when the remedies are declared without merit, which is thus clearly insufficient by obliging the petitioner to resort to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (article 48 of the Political Constitution) to seek nullity of the resolution that denied them access to the administrative file, a solution that entails a high economic and temporal cost for the aggrieved party and is, by all appearances, untimely.

**ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SUBJECTS OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.** The active subject of the right enshrined in article 30 of the Magna Carta is any person or any governed individual, meaning the constituent's purpose was to reduce administrative secrecy to its minimum expression and expand administrative transparency and publicity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the constitutional text also provides for privileged institutional access to administrative information, such as, for example, that enjoyed by the investigative committees of the Legislative Assembly (article 121, subsection 23, of the Political Constitution) for the exercise of their political control. It should be noted that privileged institutional access is regulated by infra-constitutional law for other scenarios such as the Comptroller General of the Republic (articles 13 of its Organic Law No. 7428 of August 26, 1994; 20, paragraph 2, of the repealed Law on Illicit Enrichment of Public Servants, No. 6872 of June 17, 1983 and its amendments), the Ombudsman's Office (article 12, paragraph 2, of Law No. 7319 of November 17, 1992 and its amendments), the Commission for the Promotion of Competition and the National Consumer Commission (article 64 of Law No. 7274 of December 20, 1994), the tax administration (articles 105, 106, and 107 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures), etc. As regards the passive subjects of the right of access to administrative information, it must be taken into consideration that article 30 of the Political Constitution guarantees free access to "administrative departments," meaning that passive subjects are all public entities and their organs, both of the Central Administration—the State or major public entity—and of the Decentralized Administration, whether institutional or by services—the majority of autonomous institutions—, territorial—municipalities—and corporate—professional associations, productive or industrial corporations such as the Sugar Cane Agro-Industrial League, the Coffee Institute, the Tobacco Board, the Rice Corporation, the National Livestock and Horticultural Corporations, etc. The right of access must be extended, passively, to public enterprises that assume collective forms of organization under private law through which a public administration carries out business, industrial, or commercial activity and intervenes in the economy and the market, such as the Costa Rican Petroleum Refinery, S.A. (RECOPE), the National Power and Light Company, S.A. (CNFL), Radiográfica de Costa Rica, S.A. (RACSA), Correos de Costa Rica, S.A., the Public Services Company of Heredia, S.A. (EPSH), etc., especially when they possess information of public interest. Finally, private persons who exercise, on a permanent or temporary basis, a public power or competence by virtue of legal or contractual authorization (munera pubblica), such as concessionaires of public services or works, interested parties, notaries, public accountants, engineers, architects, surveyors, etc., may eventually become passive subjects when they handle or possess information—documents—of clear public interest.

**OBJECT OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.** The constitutional text in its article 30 refers to free access to "administrative departments," it being the case that unrestricted access to the physical facilities of administrative agencies or offices would be useless and insufficient to achieve the purpose of having governed individuals informed and knowledgeable about administrative management. Consequently, a purposive or axiological interpretation of the constitutional norm must lead to the conclusion that the governed or persons may access any information held by the respective public entities and organs, regardless of its medium, whether documentary—files, records, archives, registers—, electronic or computerized—databases, electronic files, automated records, diskettes, compact discs—, audiovisual, magnetic tape, etc.

**INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC LIMITS OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.** Regarding the intrinsic limits to the essential content of the right of access to administrative information, we have the following: 1) The purpose of the right is "information on matters of public interest," so that when the administrative information sought does not concern a matter of such nature, the right is rendered ineffective and cannot be accessed. 2) The second limit is constituted by what is established in paragraph 2 of article 30 of the Constitution when stipulating "State secrets are excepted." State secrecy as a limit to the right of access to administrative information is a matter reserved for law (article 19, paragraph 1, of the General Law of Public Administration); however, more than fifty years have passed since the Constitution came into force and the legislative omission in enacting a law on state secrets and classified matters still persists. This legislative gap has obviously caused serious uncertainty and has fostered the custom contra legem of the Executive Branch to classify, by way of an executive decree, in a specific and circumstantial manner, certain matters as reserved or classified because they constitute, in its understanding, state secrets. Concerning the scope, extent, and reach of state secrecy, doctrine is uniform in accepting that it encompasses aspects such as national security (internal or external), national defense against aggressions that threaten the sovereignty and independence of the State, and foreign relations entered into between it and the rest of the subjects of Public International Law (see article 284 of the Penal Code, when defining the crime of "disclosure of secrets"). It is not idle to distinguish between secrecy for objective and material reasons (ratione materia), referring to the three aspects indicated above (national security, defense, and foreign relations), and the secrecy imposed on public officials or servants (ratione personae) who, by reason of exercising their functions, become aware of a certain type of information, regarding which they must maintain a duty of confidentiality and reserve (see article 337 of the Penal Code when defining and punishing the crime of "divulging secrets"). State secrecy is regulated in the body of law in a disjointed, dispersed, and imprecise manner (e.g., General Police Law No. 7410 of May 26, 1994, when classifying as confidential and, eventually, declarable as state secrets by the President of the Republic the reports and documents of the Directorate of State Security—article 16—; the General Law of Civil Aviation regarding some agreements of the Technical Council of Civil Aviation—article 303—, etc.). State secrecy, insofar as it constitutes an exception to the constitutional principles or values of transparency and publicity of public powers and their management, must be interpreted and applied restrictively at all times. Regarding the limitations or extrinsic limits of the right of access to administrative information, we have the following: 1) Article 28 of the Political Constitution establishes morality and public order as an extrinsic limit of any right. 2) Article 24 of the Political Constitution guarantees all persons a sphere of intangible privacy regarding other subjects of law, such that those intimate, sensitive, or nominative data that a public entity or organ has collected, processed, and stored, because they appear in its physical or automated archives, records, and files, cannot be accessed by any person because doing so would constitute an external and unconstitutional intrusion or interference. Obviously, the foregoing is especially applicable when the governed individual themselves has brought confidential information to the attention of a public administration, as required, for the purpose of obtaining a specific result or benefit. In reality, this limitation is closely linked to the first intrinsic limit indicated, since, very probably, in such a case the information sought does not concern matters of public interest but private ones. Closely linked to this limitation are banking secrecy, understood as the duty imposed on every financial intermediary entity not to reveal the information and data it possesses about its clients from any banking transaction or banking contract entered into with them, especially regarding current accounts, since article 615 of the Commercial Code expressly enshrines it for that scenario, and the industrial, commercial, or economic secrecy of companies regarding certain ideas, products, or industrial procedures and their financial, credit, and tax statements. There will be situations where the information of a private individual held by a public entity or organ may have, especially when combined with that of other private individuals, a clear public dimension and purpose, circumstances that must be progressively and casuistically identified by this Constitutional Court. 3) The investigation of crimes, when dealing with criminal investigations conducted by administrative or judicial police bodies, for the purpose of guaranteeing the accuracy and success of the investigation and, above all, to respect the presumption of innocence, honor, and privacy of the persons involved.

From the list of proven facts, it clearly follows that the respondent authority incurred in the alleged violation of the right of access to administrative information. In this regard, note that in response to a very specific request for information filed by the petitioner on October 7, 2005, the Director of the Siquirres Technical Professional High School, by brief dated the 19th of the same month, responded to said request with evasions. In this sense, the record shows that in response to the request made by the petitioner for a report on the attendance of all the staff of the Educational Center during the 2004 and 2005 school years and copies of the permits, absences, justifications, and attendance control cards of all the staff of that High School during those periods, the respondent authority merely stated that the reports were submitted to the Supervisory Advisor as part of its duties as head of the Institution and that, to guarantee the right to privacy of the officials who make up the High School staff, the petitioner had to present a written authorization from each teacher with a copy of their identification card stating their agreement to the delivery of copies of their personal files. On this point, this Constitutional Court considers that the petitioner is correct in noting that at no time did he request copies of the personal files of the other teachers of the Siquirres Technical Professional High School, but rather limited himself to requesting an attendance report for all the staff of that Educational Center during the 2004 and 2005 school years, backed by appropriate documents, namely, copies of permits, absences, justifications, and attendance control cards. In the opinion of this Chamber, given the possibility that—individually—the copy of documents contained in the officials' files could be classified as confidential or protected by the right to privacy, it was for the administrative authority to discriminate the information that could be provided to the petitioner and, regarding the remainder, to indicate that they should request authorization from the interested party to provide it. In the case at hand, it is observed that the administrative authority did not make that effort to discriminate information and unjustifiably denied everything requested by the petitioner regarding the attendance of the High School staff. In this regard, this Chamber finds no reason to have denied the petitioner a general report on the attendance of the Center's staff during the 2004 and 2005 school years, because it is not confidential or private information that reveals confidential or sensitive data from the standpoint of individuals' right to privacy. This is so much so that the respondent authority itself acknowledges in the brief of October 19, 2005, that such reports are submitted to the Supervisory Advisor. Hence, it could not be claimed that such reports contain confidential data. Furthermore, regarding the request for the permits granted by the competent authorities of the Ministry of Public Education for the activities held during 2005, specifically on May 2, 4, and 26 and August 25, 2005, and the circulars issued by the Director of the High School concerning those activities, the respondent authority merely told the petitioner that he had to be sure that each and every activity carried out by the Institution had the respective permit from the Supervisory Advisor. In the opinion of this Constitutional Court, the foregoing confirms the violation of the right of access to administrative information. Note that the petitioner did not request an opinion from the respondent Director regarding those permits, but precisely the documentary support that would allow him to ascertain the existence or not of the permits presumably granted by the competent authorities of the Ministry of Public Education for holding those activities. Given that the respondent authority merely asserts, without more, that those permits exist, despite what was clearly requested (permits and circulars), this Chamber considers that the information requested was not provided to the petitioner. Something similar can be noted regarding the dance activity organized by the National Bank at the High School's facilities on August 25, 2005. Regarding this point, the petitioner requested a report on what happened on that occasion and the actions taken by the High School authorities in relation to those events, for the benefit of the students. In response to that request, the respondent authority merely questioned the petitioner for not having reported what allegedly happened at that activity to the Guidance Department responsible for disciplinary actions for the High School students, but did not provide the requested report, nor did it indicate whether measures had been ordered or not regarding what happened. Finally, it is observed that in the brief dated October 19, 2005, the respondent authority omitted any reference regarding the request made by the petitioner concerning the vehicle entry and exit control sheets.

Given these circumstances, in the specific case, the alleged violation of the right of access to administrative information, recognized in article 30 of the Constitución Política, was established.

As a corollary of the foregoing, it is necessary to declare the appeal granted with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.

**OBJECT OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.** The constitutional text in its numeral 30 refers to free access to “administrative departments,” given that unrestricted access to the physical facilities of administrative units or offices would be useless and insufficient to achieve the goal of having citizens informed and knowledgeable about administrative management. Consequently, a purposive or axiological hermeneutics of the constitutional norm must lead to the conclusion that citizens or persons may access any information held by the respective public entities and organs, regardless of its medium, be it documentary—files (expedientes), records, archives, card indexes—, electronic or computer-based—databases, electronic files, automated files, diskettes, compact discs—, audiovisual, magnetic tape, etc.

**INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC LIMITS OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.** Regarding the intrinsic limits to the essential content of the right of access to administrative information, we have the following: 1) The purpose of the right is “information on matters of public interest,” so that when the administrative information sought does not concern a matter of such a nature, the right is vitiated and access cannot be granted. 2) The second limit is constituted by what is established in the 2nd paragraph of constitutional ordinal 30 when stipulating “State secrets are safeguarded.” The State secret as a limit to the right of access to administrative information is a matter reserved to law (article 19, 1st paragraph, of the Ley General de la Administración Pública), however, more than fifty years have elapsed since the entry into force of la Constitución and the legislative omission in the issuance of a law on state secrets and classified matters still persists. This legislative gap has obviously caused serious uncertainty and has fostered the contra legem custom of the Executive Branch to classify, by way of executive decree, in a specific and conjunctural manner, certain matters as reserved or classified for, in its understanding, constituting a State secret. Concerning the scope, extent, and reaches of the State secret, the doctrine is unanimous in accepting that it comprises aspects such as national security (internal or external), national defense against aggressions that threaten the sovereignty and independence of the State, and foreign relations concluded between the State and the rest of the subjects of Public International Law (see article 284 of the Criminal Code, when defining the crime of “revelation of secrets”). It is not idle to distinguish between secrecy for objective and material reasons (ratione materia), referring to the three previously indicated aspects (national security, defense, and foreign relations) and the secrecy imposed on public officials or servants (ratione personae) who, by reason of the exercise of their functions, know certain types of information, regarding which they must maintain a duty of discretion and reservation (see article 337 of the Criminal Code when defining and punishing the crime of “disclosure of secrets”). The State secret is regulated in the legal framework in a disjointed, dispersed, and imprecise manner (e.g., Ley General de Policía No. 7410 of May 26, 1994, when qualifying as confidential and, eventually, declarable as a State secret by the President of la República the reports and documents of la Dirección de Seguridad del Estado – article 16 - ; la Ley General de Aviación Civil regarding some agreements of the Consejo Técnico de Aviación Civil – article 303 -, etc.). The State secret, insofar as it constitutes an exception to the constitutional principles or values of transparency and publicity of public powers and their management, must be interpreted and applied, at all times, in a restrictive manner. Concerning the limitations or extrinsic limits of the right of access to administrative information, we have the following: 1) Article 28 of la Constitución Política establishes morality and public order as an extrinsic limit of any right. 2) Article 24 of la Constitución Política guarantees to all persons a sphere of privacy intangible to the rest of the subjects of law, in such a way that those intimate, sensitive, or nominative data that a public entity or organ has collected, processed, and stored, by appearing in its physical or automated archives, records, and files (expedientes), cannot be accessed by any person since this would constitute an external and unconstitutional intrusion or interference. Obviously, the foregoing is of greater application when the citizen himself has made confidential information known to a public administration, as required, for the purpose of obtaining a specific result or benefit. In reality, this limitation is intimately linked to the first indicated intrinsic limit, since, most probably, in such a situation, the sought information does not pertain to matters of public but rather private interest. Intimately linked to this limitation are bank secrecy, understood as the duty imposed on any financial intermediary entity not to reveal the information and data it holds on its clients for any banking operation or contract it has entered into with them, especially in the case of current accounts, since numeral 615 of the Commercial Code expressly enshrines it for that hypothesis, and the industrial, commercial, or economic secrecy of companies regarding certain industrial ideas, products, or procedures and their financial, credit, and tax statements. There will be situations in which the information of an individual held by a public entity or organ may have, especially when articulated with that of other individuals, a clear public dimension and vocation, circumstances that must be progressively and casuistically identified by this Constitutional Court. 3) The investigation of crimes, when dealing with criminal investigations carried out by administrative or judicial police forces, for the purpose of guaranteeing the accuracy and success of the investigation and, above all, to respect the presumption of innocence, the honor, and the privacy of the persons involved.

From the list of proven facts, it is clearly evident that the respondent authority incurred in the alleged breach of the right of access to administrative information. In this regard, it should be noted that in response to a very specific request for information filed by the plaintiff on October 7, 2005, the Director of the Colegio Técnico Profesional de Siquirres, by brief dated the 19th of the same month, responded to said request with evasions. In that sense, it is accredited in the case file that before the petition filed by the appellant to be provided with a report on the attendance of all the staff of the Educational Center during the 2004 and 2005 academic years and the copy of the leaves, absences, justifications, and attendance control cards of all the staff of that Colegio during those periods, the respondent authority merely indicated to him that the reports were presented to the Supervising Advisor as part of his duties as head of la Institución and that, in guarantee of the right to privacy of the officials who comprise the staff of the Colegio, he had to present a written authorization from each teacher with a copy of their ID card where they stated their agreement to the delivery of the copy of their personal files (expedientes). In this particular, this Constitutional Court considers that the plaintiff is right in pointing out that at no time did he request copies of the personal files (expedientes) of the other teachers of the Colegio Técnico Profesional de Siquirres, but rather he limited himself to requesting an attendance report for all the staff of that Educational Center during the 2004 and 2005 academic years, supported by suitable documents, namely, copies of leaves, absences, justifications, and attendance control cards. In the opinion of this Chamber, given the possibility that – individually – the copy of documents contained in the officials’ files (expedientes) could be classified as confidential or protected by the right to privacy, it was incumbent upon the administrative authority to discriminate the information it could provide to the plaintiff and, regarding the rest, to indicate that he request the interested party’s authorization to provide it to him. In this case, it is observed that the administrative authority did not perform said effort of discriminating information and unjustifiably denied everything requested by the appellant regarding the attendance of the Colegio staff. In this regard, the Chamber finds no reason to have denied the plaintiff a general attendance report for the Center’s staff during the 2004 and 2005 academic years, because it does not involve confidential or private information that reveals confidential or sensitive data from the standpoint of the right to privacy of individuals. So much so that the same respondent authority itself acknowledges in the brief of October 19, 2005, that such reports are presented to the Supervising Advisor. Hence, it would not be possible to affirm that such reports contain confidential data. For its part, regarding the request for the leaves granted by the competent authorities of the Ministerio de Educación Pública for the activities held during 2005, specifically, on May 2, 4, and 26 and August 25, 2005, and the circulars issued by the Director of the Colegio regarding those activities, the respondent authority limited itself to indicating to the plaintiff that he had to be sure that each and every one of the activities carried out by la Institución had the respective leave from the Supervising Advisor. In the opinion of this Constitutional Court, the foregoing confirms the breach of the right of access to administrative information. It should be noted that the appellant did not request an opinion from the respondent Director regarding said leaves, but rather, precisely, the documentary support that would allow him to ascertain the existence or not of the leaves presumably granted by the competent authorities of the Ministerio de Educación Pública for the holding of said activities. Given that the respondent authority limited itself, despite what was clearly requested (leaves and circulars), to affirming, without more, that said leaves exist, this Chamber considers that the appellant was not provided with the information he requested. Something similar can be pointed out regarding the dance activity organized by the Banco Nacional at the Colegio facilities on August 25, 2005. Regarding this point, the appellant requested a report on what occurred on that occasion and the actions adopted by the Colegio authorities in relation to those events, for the benefit of the students. In response to that request, the respondent authority limited itself to questioning the plaintiff for not having reported what presumably occurred at said activity to the Guidance Department, which is responsible for disciplinary actions concerning the Colegio’s students, but did not provide him with the requested report, nor did it indicate whether measures had been ordered or not in relation to what occurred. Finally, it is observed that in the brief dated October 19, 2005, the respondent authority omitted any reference related to the request filed by the plaintiff regarding the vehicle entry and exit control sheets. Given these circumstances, in this case, the alleged breach of the right of access to administrative information, recognized in article 30 of la Constitución Política, is configured.

As a corollary of the foregoing, it is necessary to declare the appeal granted with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this ruling.

En el marco del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho, todos y cada uno de los entes y órganos públicos que conforman la administración respectiva, deben estar sujetos a los principios constitucionales implícitos de la transparencia y la publicidad que deben ser la regla de toda la actuación o función administrativa. Las organizaciones colectivas del Derecho Público –entes públicos- están llamadas a ser verdaderas casas de cristal en cuyo interior puedan escrutar y fiscalizar, a plena luz del día, todos los administrados. Las administraciones públicas deben crear y propiciar canales permanentes y fluidos de comunicación o de intercambio de información con los administrados y los medios de comunicación colectiva en aras de incentivar una mayor participación directa y activa en la gestión pública y de actuar los principios de evaluación de resultados y rendición de cuentas actualmente incorporados a nuestro texto constitucional (artículo 11 de la Constitución Política). Bajo esta inteligencia, el secreto o la reserva administrativa son una excepción que se justifica, únicamente, bajo circunstancias calificadas cuando por su medio se tutelan valores y bienes constitucionalmente relevantes. Existen diversos mecanismos para alcanzar mayores niveles de transparencia administrativa en un ordenamiento jurídico determinado, tales como la motivación de los actos administrativos, las formas de su comunicación –publicación y notificación-, el trámite de información pública para la elaboración de los reglamentos y los planes reguladores, la participación en el procedimiento administrativo, los procedimientos de contratación administrativa, etc., sin embargo, una de las herramientas más preciosas para el logro de ese objetivo lo constituye el derecho de acceso a la información administrativa.

EL DERECHO DE ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA. El ordinal 30 de la Constitución Política garantiza el libre acceso a los “departamentos administrativos con propósitos de información sobre asuntos de interés público”, derecho fundamental que en la doctrina se ha denominado derecho de acceso a los archivos y registros administrativos, sin embargo, la denominación más acertada es la de derecho de acceso a la información administrativa, puesto que, el acceso a los soportes materiales o virtuales de las administraciones públicas es el instrumento o mecanismo para alcanzar el fin propuesto que consiste en que los administrados se impongan de la información que detentan aquéllas. Es menester indicar que no siempre la información administrativa de interés público que busca un administrado se encuentra en un expediente, archivo o registro administrativo. El derecho de acceso a la información administrativa es un mecanismo de control en manos de los administrados, puesto que, le permite a éstos, ejercer un control óptimo de la legalidad y de la oportunidad, conveniencia o mérito y, en general, de la eficacia y eficiencia de la función administrativa desplegada por los diversos entes públicos. Las administraciones públicas eficientes y eficaces son aquellas que se someten al control y escrutinio público, pero no puede existir un control ciudadano sin una adecuada información. De este modo, se puede establecer un encadenamiento lógico entre acceso a la información administrativa, conocimiento y manejo de ésta, control ciudadano efectivo u oportuno y administraciones públicas eficientes. El derecho de acceso a la información administrativa tiene un profundo asidero en una serie de principios y valores inherentes al Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho, los cuales, al propio tiempo, actúa. Así, la participación ciudadana efectiva y directa en la gestión y manejo de los asuntos públicos resulta inconcebible si no se cuenta con un bagaje importante de información acerca de las competencias y servicios administrativos, de la misma forma, el principio democrático se ve fortalecido cuando las diversas fuerzas y grupos sociales, económicos y políticos participan activa e informadamente en la formación y ejecución de la voluntad pública. Finalmente, el derecho de acceso a la información administrativa es una herramienta indispensable, como otras tantas, para la vigencia plena de los principios de transparencia y publicidad administrativas. El contenido del derecho de acceso a la información administrativa es verdaderamente amplio y se compone de un haz de facultades en cabeza de la persona que lo ejerce tales como las siguientes: a) acceso a los departamentos, dependencias, oficinas y edificios públicos; b) acceso a los archivos, registros, expedientes y documentos físicos o automatizados –bases de datos ficheros-; c) facultad del administrado de conocer los datos personales o nominativos almacenados que le afecten de alguna forma, d) facultad del administrado de rectificar o eliminar esos datos si son erróneos, incorrectos o falsos; e) derecho de conocer el contenido de los documentos y expedientes físicos o virtuales y f) derecho de obtener, a su costo, certificaciones o copias de los mismos.

TIPOLOGIA DEL DERECHO DE ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA. Se puede distinguir con claridad meridiana entre el derecho de acceso a la información administrativa (a) ad extra –fuera- y (b) ad intra –dentro- de un procedimiento administrativo. El primero se otorga a cualquier persona o administrado interesado en acceder una información administrativa determinada –uti universi- y el segundo, únicamente, a las partes interesadas en un procedimiento administrativo concreto y específico –uti singuli-. Si bien este último derecho se encuentra normado en la Ley General de la Administración Pública en su Capítulo Sexto intitulado “Del acceso al expediente y sus piezas”, Título Tercero del Libro Segundo en los artículos 272 a 274, no cabe la menor duda que tiene asidero en el ordinal 30 de la Constitución Política y, por ende, goza de los mecanismos de garantía, tutela y defensa previstos en el texto fundamental (artículo 48 de la Constitución Política) y desarrollados por la Ley del rito en esta jurisdicción (ordinales 29 y siguientes). Este corolario se impone el reparar en el carácter claramente insuficiente, lento y engorroso del único mecanismo de protección, establecido a nivel infraconstitucional, del derecho de acceso a la información administrativa ad intra de un procedimiento administrativo. En efecto, el numeral 274 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública dispone que contra la resolución que deniegue el conocimiento y acceso a una pieza de un expediente caben los recursos ordinarios previstos por ese cuerpo normativo, esto es, la revocatoria, la apelación y, eventualmente, de tratarse del jerarca, la reposición, sin preverse una vía expedita y célere cuando los recursos sean declarados sin lugar, con lo cual resulta claramente insuficiente al obligar al petente a acudir a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa (artículo 48 de la Constitución Política), para pretender la nulidad de la resolución que le ha denegado el acceso al temporal para el agraviado y que resulta, a todas luces, tardía.

SUJETOS ACTIVO Y PASIVO DEL DERECHO DE ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA. El sujeto activo del derecho consagrado en el artículo 30 de la Carta Magna lo es toda persona o todo administrado, por lo que el propósito del constituyente fue reducir a su mínima expresión el secreto administrativo y ampliar la transparencia y publicidad administrativas. Independientemente de lo anterior, el texto constitucional prevé, también, un acceso institucional privilegiado a la información administrativa como, por ejemplo, del que gozan las comisiones de investigación de la Asamblea Legislativa (artículo 121, inciso 23, de la Constitución Política) para el ejercicio de su control político. Debe advertirse que el acceso institucional privilegiado es regulado por el ordenamiento infraconstitucional para otras hipótesis tales como la Contraloría General de la República (artículos 13 de la Ley Orgánica No. 7428 del 26 de agosto de 1994; 20, párrafo 2º, de la derogada Ley sobre el Enriquecimiento Ilícito de los Servidores Públicos, No. 6872 del 17 de junio de 1983 y sus reformas), la Defensoría de los Habitantes (artículo 12, párrafo 2º, de la Ley No. 7319 del 17 de noviembre de 1992 y sus reformas), las comisiones para Promover la Competencia y Nacional del Consumidor (artículo 64 de la Ley No. 7274 del 20 de diciembre de 1994), la administración tributaria (artículos 105, 106, y 107 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), etc.. En lo tocante a los sujetos pasivos del derecho de acceso a la información administrativa, debe tomarse en consideración que el numeral 30 de la Constitución Política garantiza el libre acceso a los “departamentos administrativos”, con lo que serán sujetos pasivos todos los entes públicos y sus órganos, tanto de la Administración Central –Estado o ente público mayor- como de la Administración Descentralizada institucional o por servicios –la mayoría de las instituciones autónomas-, territorial –municipalidades- y corporativa –colegios profesionales, corporaciones productivas o industriales como la Liga Agroindustrial de la Caña de Azúcar, el Instituto del Café, la Junta del Tabaco, la Corporación Arrocera, las Corporaciones Ganadera y Hortícola Nacional, etc.-. El derecho de acceso debe hacerse extensivo, pasivamente, a las empresas públicas que asuman formas de organización colectivas del derecho privado a través de las cuales alguna administración pública ejerce una actividad empresarial, industrial o comercial e interviene en la economía y el mercado, tales como la Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo Sociedad Anónima (RECOPE), la Compañía Nacional de Fuerza y Luz Sociedad Anónima (CNFL), Radiográfica de Costa Rica Sociedad Anónima (RACSA), Correos de Costa Rica Sociedad Anónima, la Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia Sociedad Anónima (EPSH), etc., sobre todo, cuando poseen información de interés público. Por último, las personas privadas que ejercen de forma permanente o transitoria una potestad o competencia pública en virtud de habilitación legal o contractual (munera pubblica), tales como los concesionarios de servicios u obras públicas, los gestores interesados, los notarios, contadores públicos, ingenieros, arquitectos, topógrafos, etc. pueden, eventualmente, convertirse en sujetos pasivos cuando manejan o poseen información –documentos- de un claro interés público.

OBJETO DEL DERECHO DE ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA. El texto constitucional en su numeral 30 se refiere al libre acceso a los “departamentos administrativos”, siendo que el acceso irrestricto a las instalaciones físicas de las dependencias u oficinas administrativas sería inútil e insuficiente para lograr el fin de tener administrados informados y conocedores de la gestión administrativa. Consecuentemente, una hermenéutica finalista o axiológica de la norma constitucional, debe conducir a concluir que los administrados o las personas pueden acceder cualquier información en poder de los respectivos entes y órganos públicos, independientemente, de su soporte, sea documental –expedientes, registros, archivos, ficheros-, electrónico o informático –bases de datos, expedientes electrónicos, ficheros automatizados, disquetes, discos compactos-, audiovisual, magnetofónico, etc..

LÍMITES INTRÍNSECOS Y EXTRÍNSECOS DEL DERECHO DE ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA. En lo relativo a los límites intrínsecos al contenido esencial del derecho de acceso a la información administrativa, tenemos, los siguientes: 1) El fin del derecho es la “información sobre asuntos de interés público”, de modo que cuando la información administrativa que se busca no versa sobre un extremo de tal naturaleza el derecho se ve enervado y no se puede acceder. 2) El segundo límite está constituido por lo establecido en el párrafo 2º del ordinal 30 constitucional al estipularse “Quedan a salvo los secretos de Estado”. El secreto de Estado como un límite al derecho de acceso a la información administrativa es reserva de ley (artículo 19, párrafo 1º, de la Ley General de la Administración Pública), empero, han transcurrido más de cincuenta años desde la vigencia de la Constitución y todavía persiste la omisión legislativa en el dictado de una ley de secretos de estado y materias clasificadas. Esta laguna legislativa, obviamente, ha provocado una grave incertidumbre y ha propiciado la costumbre contra legem del Poder Ejecutivo de calificar, por vía de decreto ejecutivo, de forma puntual y coyuntural, algunas materias como reservadas o clasificadas por constituir, a su entender, secreto de Estado. Tocante el ámbito, extensión y alcances del secreto de Estado, la doctrina es pacífica en aceptar que comprende aspecto tales como la seguridad nacional (interna o externa), la defensa nacional frente a las agresiones que atenten contra la soberanía e independencia del Estado y las relaciones exteriores concertadas entre éste y el resto de los sujetos del Derecho Internacional Público (vid. artículo 284 del Código Penal, al tipificar el delito de “revelación de secretos”). No resulta ocioso distinguir entre el secreto por razones objetivas y materiales (ratione materia), referido a los tres aspectos anteriormente indicados (seguridad, defensa nacionales y relaciones exteriores) y el secreto impuesto a los funcionarios o servidores públicos (ratione personae) quienes por motivo del ejercicio de sus funciones conocen cierto tipo de información, respecto de la cual deben guardar un deber de sigilo y reserva (vid. artículo 337 del Código Penal al tipificar y sancionar el delito de “divulgación de secretos). El secreto de Estado se encuentra regulado en el bloque de legalidad de forma desarticulada, dispersa e imprecisa (v. gr. Ley General de Policía No. 7410 del 26 de mayo de 1994, al calificar de confidenciales y, eventualmente, declarables secreto de Estado por el Presidente de la República los informes y documentos de la Dirección de Seguridad del Estado –artículo 16-; la Ley General de Aviación Civil respecto de algunos acuerdos del Consejo Técnico de Aviación Civil –artículo 303-, etc.). El secreto de Estado en cuanto constituye una excepción a los principios o valores constitucionales de la transparencia y la publicidad de los poderes públicos y su gestión debe ser interpretado y aplicado, en todo momento, de forma restrictiva. En lo concerniente a las limitaciones o límites extrínsecos del derecho de acceso a la información administrativa tenemos los siguientes: 1) El artículo 28 de la Constitución Política establece como límite extrínseco del cualquier derecho la moral y el orden público. 2) El artículo 24 de la Constitución Política le garantiza a todas las personas una esfera de intimidad intangible para el resto de los sujetos de derecho, de tal forma que aquellos datos íntimos, sensibles o nominativos que un ente u órgano público ha recolectado, procesado y almacenado, por constar en sus archivos, registros y expedientes físicos o automatizados, no pueden ser accedidos por ninguna persona por suponer ello una intromisión o injerencia externa e inconstitucional. Obviamente, lo anterior resulta de mayor aplicación cuando el propio administrado ha puesto en conocimiento de una administración pública información confidencial, por ser requerida, con el propósito de obtener un resultado determinado o beneficio. En realidad esta limitación está íntimamente ligada al primer límite intrínseco indicado, puesto que, muy, probablemente, en tal supuesto la información pretendida no recae sobre asuntos de interés público sino privado. Íntimamente ligados a esta limitación se encuentran el secreto bancario, entendido como el deber impuesto a toda entidad de intermediación financiera de no revelar la información y los datos que posea de sus clientes por cualquier operación bancaria o contrato bancario que haya celebrado con éstos, sobre todo, en tratándose de las cuentas corrientes, ya que, el numeral 615 del Código de Comercio lo consagra expresamente para esa hipótesis, y el secreto industrial, comercial o económico de las empresas acerca de determinadas ideas, productos o procedimientos industriales y de sus estados financieros, crediticios y tributarios. Habrá situaciones en que la información de un particular que posea un ente u órgano público puede tener, sobre todo articulada con la de otros particulares, una clara dimensión y vocación pública, circunstancias que deben ser progresiva y casuísticamente identificadas por este Tribunal Constitucional. 3) La averiguación de los delitos, cuando se trata de investigaciones criminales efectuadas por cuerpos policiales administrativos o judiciales, con el propósito de garantizar el acierto y éxito de la investigación y, ante todo, para respetar la presunción de inocencia, el honor y la intimidad de las personas involucradas.

De la relación de hechos probados se desprende con claridad que la autoridad recurrida incurrió en el alegado quebranto al derecho al acceso a la información administrativa. Al respecto, obsérvese que ante una solicitud de información muy concreta planteada por el accionante el 7 de octubre del 2005, el Director del Colegio Técnico Profesional de Siquirres, por memorial de fecha 19 del mismo mes, dio respuesta a dicha solicitud con evasivas. En ese sentido, se encuentra acreditado en autos que ante la petición planteada por el recurrente para que se le brindara un informe sobre la asistencia de todo el personal del Centro Educativo durante los cursos del 2004 y 2005 y la copia de los permisos, ausencias, justificaciones y tarjetas de control de asistencia de todo el personal de ese Colegio, durante esos períodos, la autoridad recurrida se limitó a indicarle que los informes se los presentaba al Asesor Supervisor como parte de sus funciones como jerarca de la Institución y que en garantía del derecho a la intimidad de los funcionarios que conforman el personal del Colegio, debía presentar una autorización escrita de cada docente con copia de la cédula donde manifestaran su acuerdo en la entrega de la copia de sus expedientes personales. En este particular, considera este Tribunal Constitucional que lleva razón el accionante al señalar que en ningún momento solicitó copia de los expedientes personales de los restantes docentes del Colegio Técnico Profesional de Siquirres, sino que se limitó a pedir un informe de asistencia de todo el personal de ese Centro Educativo, durante los cursos del 2004 y 2005 que viniese respaldado por documentos idóneos, a saber, copia de los permisos, ausencias, justificaciones y tarjetas de control de asistencia. En criterio de esta Sala, ante la posibilidad que –singularmente- la copia de documentos contenidos en los expedientes de los funcionarios pudiera calificarse como confidencial o protegida por el derecho a la intimidad, le correspondía a la autoridad administrativa discriminar la información que podía proporcionar al accionante y en cuanto a la restante señalarle que solicitara autorización del interesado para proporcionársela. En la especie, se observa que la autoridad administrativa no efectuó dicho esfuerzo de discriminación de información y negó –injustificadamente- todo lo solicitado por el recurrente en relación con la asistencia del personal del Colegio. Al respecto, no encuentra la Sala motivo para haberle negado al accionante un informe general de asistencia del personal del Centro durante los cursos lectivos del 2004 y 2005, porque no se trata de información confidencial o privada que revele datos confidenciales o sensibles, desde el punto de vista del derecho a la intimidad de las personas. Tan es así que la misma autoridad recurrida reconoce en el memorial del 19 de octubre del 2005 que ese tipo de informes se presentan ante el Asesor Supervisor. De ahí que no cabría afirmar que dichos informes contengan datos confidenciales. Por su parte, en cuanto a la solicitud de los permisos otorgados por las autoridades competentes del Ministerio de Educación Pública para las actividades celebradas durante el 2005, concretamente, los días 2, 4 y 26 de mayo y 25 de agosto del 2005 y las circulares emitidas por el Director del Colegio con respecto a esas actividades, la autoridad recurrida se limitó a indicarle al accionante que tenía que estar seguro que todas y cada una de las actividades realizadas por la Institución contaban con el respectivo permiso del Asesor Supervisor. En criterio de este Tribunal Constitucional lo anterior confirma el quebranto al derecho al acceso a la información administrativa. Obsérvese que el recurrente no solicitó una opinión del Director recurrido en relación con dichos permisos, sino precisamente, el respaldo documental que le permita cerciorarse de la existencia o no de los permisos presuntamente otorgados por las autoridades competentes del Ministerio de Educación Pública para la realización de dichas actividades. Dado que la autoridad recurrida se limita, pese a lo que claramente se le solicitó (permisos y circulares), a afirmar, sin más, que dichos permisos existen, considera esta Sala que no se brindó al recurrente la información que solicitó. Algo similar cabe señalar en cuanto a la actividad bailable organizada por el Banco Nacional en las instalaciones del Colegio el 25 de agosto del 2005. En cuanto a este punto el recurrente solicitó un informe de lo acontecido en esa oportunidad y las acciones adoptadas por las autoridades del Colegio en relación con esos hechos, en beneficio de los estudiantes. Ante esa solicitud, la autoridad recurrida se limitó a cuestionar al accionante porque no había denunciado lo presuntamente acontecido en dicha actividad al Departamento de Orientación encargado de las acciones disciplinarias de los estudiantes del Colegio, pero no le proporcionó el informe solicitado, ni le indicó si se habían ordenado o no medidas en relación con lo acontecido. Finalmente, se observa que en el memorial de fecha 19 de octubre del 2005, la autoridad recurrida omitió toda referencia relacionada con la solicitud planteada por el accionante en cuanto a las hojas de control de entrada y salida de vehículos. Dadas estas circunstancias, en la especie, se configuró el alegado quebranto al derecho de acceso a la información administrativa, reconocido en el artículo 30 de la Constitución Política.

Como corolario de lo expuesto, se impone declarar con lugar el recurso con las consecuencias que se detallarán en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.