Prosecutor's powers to access public officials' sworn declarationsFacultades del Ministerio Público para acceder a declaraciones juradas de funcionarios

III.- [...] B.5) Powers of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Public Ministry to request sworn statements of public officials from the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. [...] According to the defense, this information was not properly collected and the jurisdictional authority should have intervened. However, the review of the actions taken shows that the sworn statements (declaraciones juradas) were requested in an adequate manner to safeguard the sensitive and confidential information contained in the sworn statements regarding the defendant's asset situation between 2014 and 2018. Indeed, Article 24 of the Constitution guarantees all persons an inviolable sphere of privacy from other subjects, such that those private, sensitive, or nominative data that a public entity or body has collected, processed, and stored, as they appear in its physical or automated archives, records, and files, cannot be accessed by private individuals; otherwise, it would constitute an unconstitutional intrusion or external interference. However, the exceptions and methods for obtaining such "sensitive or private" data are regulated in Articles 198 and 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the Law on the Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications No. 7425, of August 9, 1994, which, although prior, contributes together with Law No. 8968 on the "Protection of Individuals Regarding the Processing of Their Personal Data" to materializing the state's commitment to fighting corruption, which would later be strengthened in specific treaties and, specifically, to preventing, detecting, and punishing corruption in the exercise of public functions. This task, in relation to the right of access to public information held by the Public Administration and the right to privacy, requires balancing the interests involved so that there is strict control over the information revealed and its purposes, a guarantee not deemed violated in this case. In this sense, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled in decision No. 04037-2014, of 11:02 a.m. on March 21, 2014, which it is appropriate to partially quote, and it states: "IV.- On the interplay between the right to privacy and the right of access to public information (...) The recognition of this right also has constitutional and international roots. It is found in Article 24 of the Constitution, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article V of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, for the resolution of the present case, it is necessary to balance the rights involved in order to arrive at an interpretation that allows for the harmonious development of both. To this end, it is worth studying how other courts of justice have answered this question. In the United States, the Supreme Court heard in the case Department of the Air Force v. Rose the claim of student editors of a law review who requested information from the Department of the Air Force regarding summaries of hearing records involving accusations of violations of the Air Force Honor and Ethics Code. The information was denied to the petitioners, who appealed to higher instances, where they obtained favorable results. Subsequently, the Air Force appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling that favored the petitioners. In analyzing the complainant's arguments, the Supreme Court assumed that exceptions to freedom of information should be interpreted restrictively, since the purpose of the legislation (the Freedom of Information Act) was to disclose the information held by the Administration and, thereby, open it to public scrutiny. Thus, exceptions to the principle of maximum disclosure must be limited and restricted. The principle of maximum disclosure is not unknown in Latin America. In the case Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights heard the complaint of a foundation that had requested information from the Chilean Foreign Investment Committee about a foreign investment project. The requested information concerned the contracts signed, their amounts, the identity of the investors (both foreign and national), among other details. The information was not provided to the plaintiffs. In the end, the case was resolved in favor of the plaintiffs. Among the considerations put forward by the Court, the issue of the principle of maximum disclosure and its possible exceptions also arose: '89. Regarding the requirements that a restriction in this area must meet, they must first be previously established by law as a means of ensuring that they are not left to the discretion of public authority. Such laws must be enacted "for reasons of general interest and for the purpose for which they have been established" (…) 90. Secondly, the restriction established by law must respond to an objective permitted by the American Convention. In this regard, Article 13.2 of the Convention allows restrictions necessary to ensure "respect for the rights or reputation of others" or "the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals." 91. Finally, the restrictions imposed must be necessary in a democratic society, which depends on them being oriented toward satisfying a compelling public interest. Among several options to achieve this objective, the one that least restricts the protected right must be chosen. That is, the restriction must be proportional to the interest that justifies it and must be conducive to achieving that legitimate objective, interfering as little as possible in the effective exercise of the right. 92. The Court observes that in a democratic society, it is essential for state authorities to be governed by the principle of maximum disclosure, which establishes the presumption that all information is accessible, subject to a restricted system of exceptions.' Thus, it follows that exceptions must be express, legal, and interpreted restrictively. Another case from the inter-American jurisdiction is Fontevecchia and D'Amico v. Argentina. In it, the Inter-American Court heard the civil judgment imposed against the director and editor of an Argentine magazine for the publication of two articles referring to the existence of an unrecognized child of the president with a congresswoman, and the relationship between them. On that occasion, the Court differentiated between the protection of the privacy of public officials and that of other persons: '60. The different threshold of protection for public officials is explained because they voluntarily expose themselves to societal scrutiny, which can lead them to a greater risk of suffering harm to their right to private life. In the present case, it concerned the public official holding the highest elective office in his country, President of the Nation, and, therefore, he was subject to the greatest social scrutiny, not only regarding his official activities or the exercise of his functions but also regarding aspects that, in principle, could be linked to his private life but which reveal matters of public interest. 61. Regarding the nature of public interest, the Court has reaffirmed in its jurisprudence the protection of freedom of expression with respect to opinions or information on matters in which society has a legitimate interest in staying informed, in knowing what affects the functioning of the State, or affects general rights or interests or brings about significant consequences. (…) In other words, the threshold of protection for the privacy of public officials is lower because public interest is at stake, which demands knowledge of the proper administration of public funds and the integrity and suitability of state officials. Another case that arose in the United States was Duplantier v. United States. The central point of that case reflects similarities with the one being heard in this venue. On that occasion, a group of judges filed an appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, considering the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 unconstitutional for containing provisions requiring federal judges to file a personal financial statement that was available to the public. In resolving the matter, it was affirmed, first, that the fact that the judges were appointed—that is, that it was not a popularly elected office—did not affect the public interest in knowing their personal finances, because the judges had chosen to accept the public office and assume a public responsibility, which placed limits on their privacy. The Court considered that there was a public interest compelling the disclosure of the data, because it ensured the impartiality and honesty of the judicial branch, instilled public confidence in the integrity and neutrality of the judges, and, finally, informed the public about the judges' economic interests to avoid conflicts of interest. In conclusion, the public interest was sufficient to subordinate the right to privacy of those obligated. For its part, the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic resolved in its decision TC/0042/12 of September 21, 2012, a review appeal filed by the Chamber of Deputies against a first-instance judgment that required it to disclose the name and salary amount of that Chamber's advisors. The Chamber had provided the applicant with the number of advisors and the total amount of the remunerations but refused to indicate the name and salary, considering that information personal. The Constitutional Court considered: 'The right to public information has great relevance for strengthening democracy, since its exercise guarantees transparency and allows citizens to control and oversee the behavior of the Public Powers (...) Likewise, the right to free access to public information aims to control the use and management of public resources and, consequently, to place obstacles to administrative corruption, a scourge that, as stated in the preamble of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (dated March 29, 1996) and that of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (dated October 31, 2003), undermines "(…) the institutions and values of democracy, ethics, and justice (…) The Constitutional Court considers that, although the right to privacy is a fundamental value of the democratic system, as is the protection of personal data, they cannot, generally, although exceptionally they can, restrict the right of free access to public information, since limiting it would strip citizens of an essential mechanism for controlling corruption in the Public Administration (…)'" This constitutional overview, together with the national laws that will be mentioned, demonstrates the importance that has been given to the duty of transparency in public finances and in the work of public officials. Therefore, having established that, in the specific case, under this premise and for purely investigative purposes, the strictly necessary information was made available to the competent authorities (the Public Ministry, which holds the monopoly of criminal prosecution) through the appropriate channels to maintain confidentiality, it is reiterated that no defect is detected. In this line, Article 7 of the Law on the Protection of Individuals Regarding the Processing of Their Personal Data establishes: "Article 7—Free access to information. Information related to the income, budgeting, custody, oversight, administration, investment, and expenditure of public funds is of public interest, as well as the information necessary to ensure the effectiveness of this Law, in relation to acts and conduct of public officials (…)" On the other hand, according to Article 1 of the Law on the Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications No. 7425, the following is provided: "Article 1. For the purposes of this Law, private documents are considered to be: epistolary correspondence, by fax, telex, telematics, or any other means; videos, cassettes, magnetic tapes, discs, diskettes, writings, books, memorials, records, plans, drawings, charts, X-rays, photographs, and any other form of recording information of a private nature, used in a representative or declarative manner, to illustrate or prove something" (emphasis added). For its part, Article 2 of that same special law indicates: "When it is indispensable for ascertaining the truth, the Judge may order, ex officio, at the request of the police authority in charge of the investigation, the Public Ministry, or any of the parties to the proceeding, the registration, seizure, and examination of any private document, provided that it can serve as indispensable proof of the commission of some criminal conduct. The Judge shall personally carry out the proceeding, except in exceptional cases in which, at his discretion, it may be delegated to members of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial) or the Public Ministry, who must inform him of the result of the proceeding." For the specific case, Article 24 of Law No. 8422 (Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment), in force since October 2004, establishes that the content of sworn statements (declaraciones juradas) is confidential, except for the declarant himself, and does not preclude access required by special investigative committees of the Legislative Assembly, the Public Ministry, or the courts of the Republic for the purpose of investigating and determining the commission of possible infractions and crimes provided for in the cited law. This latter provision is subsequent and special (specific for sworn statements of public officials) to the former, such that it displaces it and, contrary to what the appellant argues, does not give a private nature to this statement (to the point that it lists the state offices that can become aware of its content), but rather establishes restricted access for third-party purposes, which is different. And, although some sensitive data is incorporated in the document, this does not change the legal nature of the document and, for that reason, its access is restricted. Hence, the prosecuting body was authorized not only to request the statements made by [Name 001] but also to examine their content and use them for investigative purposes, so the argument must be rejected. [...]

Chile, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights heard the complaint of a foundation that had requested information from the Chilean Foreign Investment Committee regarding a foreign investment project. The information requested concerned the contracts signed, their amounts, the identity of the investors (both foreign and national), among other things. The information was not provided to the plaintiffs. In the end, the case was resolved in favor of the plaintiffs. Among the considerations put forth by the Court, the issue of the principle of maximum disclosure and its possible exceptions also arose: 89. Regarding the requirements that a restriction on this matter must meet, first, they must be previously established by law as a means to ensure that they are not left to the discretion of public power. Such laws must be enacted "for reasons of general interest and for the purpose for which they have been established" («) 90. Second, the restriction established by law must respond to an objective permitted by the American Convention. In this regard, Article 13.2 of the Convention permits restrictions necessary to ensure "respect for the rights or reputation of others" or "the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals." 91. Finally, the restrictions imposed must be necessary in a democratic society, which depends on them being aimed at satisfying a compelling public interest. Among several options to achieve that objective, the one that restricts the protected right to a lesser degree must be chosen. That is, the restriction must be proportional to the interest that justifies it and must be conducive to achieving that legitimate objective, interfering as little as possible in the effective exercise of the right. 92. The Court observes that in a democratic society it is essential that state authorities be governed by the principle of maximum disclosure, which establishes the presumption that all information is accessible, subject to a restricted system of exceptions." Thus, exceptions must be express, legal, and interpreted restrictively. Another case in the inter-American jurisdiction is Fontevecchia y D’Amico v. Argentina. In it, the Inter-American Court heard the civil judgment imposed against the director and editor of an Argentine magazine for the publication of two articles that referred to the existence of an unacknowledged child of the president with a congresswoman, and the relationship between them. On that occasion, the Court differentiated between the protection of the privacy of public officials and that of other persons: "60. The different threshold of protection for the public official is explained because he voluntarily exposes himself to society's scrutiny, which can lead to a greater risk of suffering infringements on his right to private life. In the present case, it concerned the public official who held the highest elective office in his country, President of the Nation, and, therefore, was subject to the greatest social scrutiny, not only regarding his official activities or the exercise of his functions but also regarding aspects that, in principle, could be linked to his private life but that reveal matters of public interest. 61. Regarding the character of public interest, in its jurisprudence the Court has reaffirmed the protection of freedom of expression with respect to opinions or information on matters in which society has a legitimate interest in staying informed, of knowing what affects the functioning of the State, or affects general rights or interests or has important consequences. (" In other words, the threshold of protection of the privacy of public officials is lower because the public interest is at stake, which demands knowledge of the proper administration of public funds and the integrity and suitability of state officials. Another case that arose in the United States was Duplantier v. United States. The core point of that case reflects similarities with the one being heard in this venue. On that occasion, a group of judges filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considering that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was unconstitutional by containing provisions that required federal judges to file a personal financial disclosure that was available to the public. In resolving the matter, it was stated, first, that the fact that the judges were appointed—that is, that it did not involve a popularly elected position—did not affect the public interest in knowing their personal finances, because the judges had chosen to accept the public position and assume public responsibility, which placed limits on their privacy. The Court considered that there was a public interest that compelled the disclosure of the data, as it ensured the impartiality and honesty of the judicial branch, instilled confidence in the public about the integrity and neutrality of the judges, and, finally, informed the public about the judges' economic interests to avoid conflicts of interest. In conclusion, the public interest was sufficient to subordinate the right to privacy of those obliged. For its part, the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic resolved in its decision TC/0042/12 of September 21, 2012, a review appeal filed by the Chamber of Deputies against a first-instance judgment that obliged it to communicate the name and the amount of the salaries of the advisors of said Chamber. The Chamber had communicated to the applicant the number of advisors and the global amount of the remunerations, but refused to indicate the name and salary because it considered that information personal. The Constitutional Court considered: "The right to public information has great relevance for the strengthening of democracy, since its exercise guarantees transparency and allows citizens to control and oversee the behavior of the Public Powers (...) Likewise, the right of free access to public information has the purpose of controlling the use and management of public resources and, consequently, placing obstacles to administrative corruption, a scourge that, as stated in the preamble of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (dated March 29, 1996) and that of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (dated October 31, 2003), undermines '(" the institutions and values of democracy, ethics and justice (" The Constitutional Court considers that, although the right to privacy is a fundamental value of the democratic system, as is the protection of personal data, they cannot, in a general manner, although exceptionally they may, restrict the right of free access to public information, since limiting it would deprive the citizenry of an essential mechanism for the control of corruption in the Public Administration" («)' This constitutional account, together with the national rules that will be discussed, demonstrates the importance that has been given to the duty of transparency in public finances and in the work of the civil service.

Therefore, it having been established that, in this particular case, under that premise and for purely investigative purposes, the strictly necessary information was made available to the competent authorities (the Public Prosecutor's Office, which holds the monopoly on criminal prosecution) through the appropriate channels to maintain confidentiality, it is reiterated that no defect is detected. In that line, Article 7 of the *Ley de Protección de la Persona frente al tratamiento de sus Datos Personales* establishes: "Article 7—Free access to information. Information related to the income, budgeting, custody, oversight, administration, investment, and expenditure of public funds is of public interest, as well as information necessary to ensure the effectiveness of this Law, in relation to facts and conduct of public officials." On the other hand, according to numeral 1 of the *Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones No. 7425*, the following is stated: "Article 1. For the purposes of this Law, private documents are considered to be: epistolary correspondence, by fax, telex, telematic means, or any other medium; videos, cassettes, magnetic tapes, disks, diskettes, writings, books, memorials, records, plans, drawings, charts, x-rays, photographs, and any other form of recording information of a private nature, used for illustrative or declarative purposes, to illustrate or prove something." (emphasis supplied). Meanwhile, Article 2 of that same special law indicates: "When it is indispensable to ascertain the truth, the Judge may order, ex officio, at the request of the police authority in charge of the investigation, of the Public Prosecutor's Office, or of one of the parties to the proceeding, the registration, seizure, and examination of any private document, provided that it may serve as indispensable evidence of the commission of some criminal conduct. The Judge shall personally conduct the proceeding, except in exceptional cases, in which, according to his or her criteria, it may be delegated to members of the Judicial Investigation Agency or the Public Prosecutor's Office, who must report to him or her on the result of the proceeding." For the specific case, Article 24 of Law No. 8422 (*Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento ilícito*), in force since October 2004, establishes that the content of sworn statements is confidential, except for the declarant him or herself, and does not prevent the access required by the special investigative committees of the Legislative Assembly, the Public Prosecutor's Office, or the courts of the Republic for the purpose of investigating and determining the commission of possible infractions and crimes foreseen in the cited law. This latter provision is subsequent and special (specific to sworn statements of public officials) relative to the former, such that it supersedes it and, contrary to what the appellant argues, does not give a private character to that declaration (to the point that it lists the state offices that may become cognizant of its content), but rather establishes a restricted access for third-party purposes, which is different. And, although some sensitive data are incorporated into the document, this does not change the legal nature of the document, and for that reason, its access is restricted. Hence, the prosecuting entity was empowered not only to request the sworn statements made by [Name 001] but also to examine their content and use them for investigative purposes, so the argument must be rejected. [...]" 04037-2014, of 11:02 a.m. on March 21, 2014, which it is appropriate&nbsp;</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-indent: -0.5pt;">to partially revisit and which states:</span><p data-mce-style="margin: 0pt 53.15pt 0.2pt 28.95pt; text-indent: -0.5pt; line-height: 151%; font-size: 11pt;" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 0pt 53.15pt 0.2pt 28.95pt; text-indent: -0.5pt; line-height: 22.1467px; font-size: 11pt;"><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">"IV.- On the balancing of the right to privacy with the right of access to public information&nbsp;</span>(...)&nbsp;<span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">The recognition of said right also has constitutional and international roots. It is found in Article 24 of the Political Constitution, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article V of the</span></p><p data-mce-style="margin: 0pt 53.1pt 0.2pt 28.95pt; text-indent: -0.5pt; line-height: 151%; font-size: 11pt;" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 0pt 53.1pt 0.2pt 28.95pt; text-indent: -0.5pt; line-height: 22.1467px; font-size: 11pt;"><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, for the resolution of the case at hand,&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">it is necessary to carry out a balancing of the rights involved in order to arrive at an interpretation that allows the harmonious development of both.&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">To this end, it is worth studying the way in which other courts of justice have answered said question. In the United States, the Supreme Court heard in the case Department of the Air Force v. Rose the claim of student editors of a law review who requested information from the Department of the Air Force about the summaries of hearing records in which accusations of infraction of the Air Force Code of Honor and Ethics were heard. The information was denied to the petitioners, who appealed to higher instances, where they obtained favorable results. Subsequently, the Air Force appealed to the Supreme Court in order to reverse the ruling that favored the petitioners. When analyzing the appellant's arguments, the Supreme Court started from the premise that exceptions to freedom of information should be interpreted restrictively, since the purpose of the regulation (Freedom of Information Act) was to disclose information held by the Administration and, thereby, open it to public scrutiny. In this way, exceptions to the principle of maximum disclosure (principio de máxima divulgación) should be limited and restricted.&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">The principle of maximum disclosure is not unknown in Latin America.&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">In the case Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights heard the complaint of a foundation that had requested information from the Chilean Foreign Investment Committee about a foreign investment project. The requested information concerned the contracts signed, the amounts thereof, the identity of the investors (both foreign and national), among others. The information was not provided to the plaintiffs. In the end, the case was resolved in favor of the plaintiffs. Among the considerations put forward by the Court, the issue of the principle of maximum disclosure and its possible exceptions also arose</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">: ³89. Regarding the requirements that a restriction on this matter must meet, first, they must be previously established by law as a means to ensure that they are not left to the discretion of public power. Said laws must be enacted ³for reasons of general interest and for the purpose for which they have been established´&nbsp;</span>(«)<span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&nbsp;90. Second, the restriction established by law must respond to an objective permitted by the American Convention. In this regard, Article 13.2 of the Convention permits necessary restrictions to ensure ³respect for the rights or reputation of others´&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">or ³the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals´. 91. Finally, the restrictions imposed must be necessary in a democratic society, which depends on their being oriented to satisfy a compelling public interest.&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">Among several options to achieve that objective, the one that restricts the protected right to a lesser degree must be chosen.</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&nbsp;That is, the restriction must be proportional to the interest that justifies it and must be conducive to achieving that legitimate objective, interfering to the least extent possible in the effective exercise of the right. 92. The Court observes that in a democratic society it is indispensable that state authorities be governed by the&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration-line: underline;">principle of maximum disclosure</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">, which establishes the&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration-line: underline;">presumption that all information is accessible</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">,&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">subject to a restricted system of exceptions.´&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Thus, it is understood that exceptions must be express, legal, and interpreted restrictively.</span><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">&nbsp;Another case from the inter-American jurisdiction is Fontevecchia and D¶amico v. Argentina. In it, the Inter-American Court heard the civil judgment imposed against the director and editor of an Argentine magazine for the publication of two articles that referred to the existence of an unacknowledged son of the president with a congresswoman, and to the relationship between them. On that occasion, the Court differentiated between the protection of the privacy of public officials and that of other persons: ³</span><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">60.&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">The different threshold of protection for the public official is explained because he voluntarily exposes himself to the scrutiny of society, which can lead to a greater risk of suffering impacts on his right to private life</span><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">. In the present case, it concerned the public official who held the highest elective office in his country, President of the Nation</span><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">&nbsp;and, therefore, was subject to the greatest social scrutiny, not only regarding his official activities or the exercise of his functions but also regarding aspects that, in principle, could be linked to his private life but that reveal matters of public interest. 61. Regarding the nature of public interest, in its jurisprudence the Court has reaffirmed the protection of freedom of expression with respect to opinions or information on matters in which society has a legitimate interest in staying informed, in knowing what affects the functioning of the State, or affects general rights or interests or carries important consequences.&nbsp;</span>(«)<span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">&nbsp;In other words,&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">the threshold of protection of privacy for public officials is lower because the public interest is at stake, which demands knowledge of the proper administration of public funds and the integrity and suitability of state officials</span><span data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">.&nbsp;</span><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">Another case that arose in the United States was Duplantier</span></p><p data-mce-style="margin: 0pt 53.1pt 0.2pt 28.95pt; text-indent: -0.5pt; line-height: 151%; font-size: 11pt;" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 0pt 53.1pt 0.2pt 28.95pt; text-indent: -0.5pt; line-height: 22.1467px; font-size: 11pt;"><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">v. United States. The core point of said case reflects similarities with the one being heard in this venue. On that occasion, a group of judges filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considering that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was unconstitutional as it contained provisions that obligated federal judges to file a personal financial disclosure that was available to the public. When resolving the question, it was affirmed, first, that the fact that the judges were appointed—that is, that it was not a popularly elected office—did not affect the public interest in knowing their personal finances, since the judges had chosen to accept the public position and assume a public responsibility, which placed limits on their privacy. The Court considered that there was a public interest that compelled the disclosure of the data, since it ensured the impartiality and honesty of the judicial branch, instilled confidence in the public about the integrity and neutrality of the judges and, lastly, informed the public about the economic interests of the judges to avoid conflicts of interest. In conclusion, the public interest was sufficient to subordinate the right to privacy of those obligated. For its part,</span><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">&nbsp;the Constitutional Tribunal of the Dominican Republic resolved</span><span data-mce-style="font-style: italic;" style="font-style: italic;">&nbsp;in its decision TC/0042/12 of September 21, 2012 a review appeal filed by the Chamber of Deputies against a first-instance judgment that obligated it to communicate the name and the amount of the salaries of the advisors of said Chamber.</span></p> The Chamber had communicated to the applicant the number of advisors and the global amount of the remunerations, but refused to indicate the name and salary, considering that information personal. The Constitutional Court considered: "The right to public information is of great relevance for the strengthening of democracy, since its exercise guarantees transparency and allows citizens to control and oversee the conduct of the Public Powers (...) Likewise, the right of free access to public information has the purpose of controlling the use and management of public resources and, consequently, placing obstacles in the way of administrative corruption, a scourge that, as stated in the preamble of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (dated March 29, 1996) and that of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (dated October 31, 2003), undermines " the institutions and values of democracy, ethics and justice " The Constitutional Court considers that, although the right to privacy is a fundamental value of the democratic system, as is the protection of personal data, they cannot, in a general manner, although they can exceptionally, restrict the right of free access to public information, since limiting it would deprive the citizenry of an essential mechanism for controlling corruption in the Public Administration "' This constitutional account, together with the national norms that will be cited, demonstrates the importance that has been given to the duty of transparency in public finances and in the work of public officials. Therefore, having been accredited that, in the particular case, under that premise and for purely investigative purposes, the strictly necessary information was made available to the competent authorities (the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público), which has the monopoly of criminal prosecution) through the appropriate channels to maintain confidentiality, it is reiterated, no defect is detected. In that line, Article 7 of the Law on the Protection of the Individual with regard to the Processing of their Personal Data (Ley de Protección de la Persona frente al tratamiento de sus Datos Personales) establishes: "Article 7.—Free access to the information. It is of public interest the information related to the income, budgeting, custody, oversight, administration, investment, and expenditure of public funds, as well as the information necessary to ensure the effectiveness of this Law, in relation to facts and conduct of public officials ("). For its part, Article 2 of that same special law indicates: "When it is indispensable to ascertain the truth, the Judge may order, ex officio, at the request of the police authority in charge of the investigation, the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público), or any of the parties to the proceeding, the registration, seizure, and examination of any private document, provided that it may serve as indispensable evidence of the commission of some criminal conduct. The Judge shall personally carry out the proceeding, except in exceptional cases, in which, according to his/her criteria, it may be delegated to members of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial) or the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público), who must inform him/her of the result of the proceeding." For the specific case, Article 24 of Law No. 8422 (Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment (Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento ilícito)) in effect since October 2004, establishes that the content of sworn statements is confidential, except for the declarant him/herself, and does not prevent the access required by the special investigative commissions of the Legislative Assembly, the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público), or the courts of the Republic for the purpose of investigating and determining the commission of possible infractions and crimes set forth in said law. This latter provision is subsequent to and special (specific for sworn statements of public officials) over the former, so that it displaces it and, contrary to what the appellant raises, does not give a private character to that statement (to the point that it lists the state offices that can become aware of its content), but rather establishes a restricted access for the purposes of third parties, which is different. And, although some sensitive data are incorporated in the document, this does not change the legal nature of the document and, for that reason, its access is restricted. Hence, the accusing body was legitimized not only to request the statements made by [Name 001] but also to examine their content and use them for investigative purposes, for which reason the argument must be rejected. [...]"

"III.- [...] B.5) Facultades de la Fiscalía General del Ministerio Público para solicitar a la Contraloría General de la República las declaraciones juradas de funcionarios públicos. [...] Para la defensa, esta información no fue debidamente recabada y debió intervenir la autoridad jurisdiccional. No obstante, la revisión de la gestión realizada evidencia que se solicitaron las declaraciones juradas de manera adecuada para resguardar la información sensible y confidencial que contienen las declaraciones juradas sobre la situación patrimonial del encartado entre el 2014 y 2018. En efecto, el numeral 24 de la Constitución Política garantiza a todas las personas una esfera de intimidad infranqueable para el resto de los sujetos, de tal forma que aquellos datos privados, 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 los particulares pues, de lo contrario, constituiría una intromisión o injerencia externa e inconstitucional. Sin embargo, las excepciones y formas de obtener esos datos "sensibles o privados" están reguladas en los artículos 198 y 201 del Código Procesal Penal y en Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones No. 7425, del 09 de agosto de 1994 que, aunque previa, contribuye a materializar junto con la ley No. 8968 sobre "Protección de la persona frente al tratamiento de sus datos personales", el compromiso estatal en el combate de la corrupción que luego se fortalecería en tratados específicos y, puntualmente, a prevenir, detectar y sancionar la corrupción en el ejercicio de la función pública. Esta labor, frente al derecho al acceso a la información pública que se encuentra en manos de la Administración Pública y al derecho a la intimidad, exige equilibrar los intereses involucrados de manera que exista un control estricto sobre la información que se revela y los fines, garantía que no se estima vulnerada en este caso. En tal sentido, se pronunció la Sala Constitucional en el voto No. 04037-2014, de las 11:02 horas del 21 de marzo de 2014, que conviene retomar parcialmente y dice: "IV.- Sobre la conjugación del derecho a la intimidad con el derecho de acceso a la información pública (...) El reconocimiento de dicho derecho también es de raigambre constitucional e internacional. Se encuentra en el artículo 24 de la Constitución Política, el artículo 12 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, el artículo V de la Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, el artículo 17 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, y el artículo 11 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. De manera que, para la resolución del caso de marras, es menester realizar un balance de los derechos involucrados con el fin de arribar a una interpretación que permita el desenvolvimiento armonioso de ambos. A tal efecto, no está de más estudiar la manera en la que otros tribunales de justicia han respondido dicha pregunta. En Estados Unidos, la Corte Suprema conoció en el caso Department of the Air Force v. Rose el reclamo de estudiantes editores de una revista de derecho que requirieron información al Departamento de la Fuerza Aérea sobre los resúmenes de los registros de audiencias en que se conocieron acusaciones de infracción al Código de Honor y Ética de la Fuerza Aérea. La información les fue negada a los petentes, quienes acudieron a las instancias superiores, donde obtuvieron resultados favorables. Posteriormente, la Fuerza Aérea acudió a la Corte Suprema con el fin de revertir el pronunciamiento que favorecía a los petentes. Al analizar los argumentos del quejoso, la Corte Suprema partió del supuesto de que las excepciones a la libertad de información debían ser interpretadas de manera restrictiva, pues el propósito de la normativa (Ley de la libertad de información o Freedom of Information Act) era divulgar la información que se encuentra en posesión de la Administración y, con ello, abrirla al escrutinio público. De esta forma, las excepciones al principio de máxima divulgación debían ser limitadas y restringidas. El principio de máxima divulgación no es desconocido en Latinoamérica. En el caso Claude Reyes y otros v. Chile, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos conoció la queja de una fundación que había requerido información al Comité de Inversiones chileno sobre un proyecto de inversión extranjera. La información solicitada versaba sobre los contratos suscritos, el monto de los mismos, la identidad de los inversionistas (tanto extranjeros, como nacionales), entre otros. La información no fue proporcionada a los demandantes. Al final, el caso fue resuelto a favor de los demandantes. Entre las consideraciones esgrimidas por la Corte, también surgió el tema del principio de máxima divulgación y sus posibles excepciones: ³89. En cuanto a los requisitos que debe cumplir una restricción en esta materia, en primer término deben estar previamente fijadas por ley como medio para asegurar que no queden al arbitrio del poder público. Dichas leyes deben dictarse ³por razones de interés general y con el propósito para el cual han sido establecidas´ («) 90. En segundo lugar, la restricción establecida por ley debe responder a un objetivo permitido por la Convención Americana. Al respecto, el artículo 13.2 de la Convención permite que se realicen restricciones necesarias para asegurar ³el respeto a los derechos o a la reputación de los demás´ o ³la protección de la seguridad nacional, el orden público o la salud o la moral públicas´. 91. Finalmente, las restricciones que se impongan deben ser necesarias en una sociedad democrática, lo que depende de que estén orientadas a satisfacer un interés público imperativo. Entre varias opciones para alcanzar ese objetivo, debe escogerse aquélla que restrinja en menor escala el derecho protegido. Es decir, la restricción debe ser proporcional al interés que la justifica y debe ser conducente para alcanzar el logro de ese legítimo objetivo, interfiriendo en la menor medida posible en el efectivo ejercicio del derecho. 92. La Corte observa que en una sociedad democrática es indispensable que las autoridades estatales se rijan por el principio de máxima divulgación, el cual establece la presunción de que toda información es accesible, sujeto a un sistema restringido de excepciones.´ Así, se tiene que las excepciones deben ser expresas, legales e interpretadas de manera restrictiva. Otro caso de la jurisdicción interamericana es el Fontevecchia y D¶amico v. Argentina. En él, la Corte Interamericana conoció la condena civil impuesta en contra del director y editor de una revista argentina por la publicación de dos artículos en los que hacían referencia a la existencia de un hijo no reconocido del presidente con una diputada, y a la relación entre ellos. En dicha ocasión, la Corte diferenció entre la protección la intimidad de los funcionarios públicos y la del resto de las personas: ³60. El diferente umbral de protección del funcionario público se explica porque se expone voluntariamente al escrutinio de la sociedad, lo cual lo puede llevar a un mayor riesgo de sufrir afectaciones a su derecho a la vida privada. En el presente caso se trataba del funcionario público que ostentaba el más alto cargo electivo de su país, Presidente de la Nación y, por ello, estaba sujeto al mayor escrutinio social, no solo sobre sus actividades oficiales o el ejercicio de sus funciones sino también sobre aspectos que, en principio, podrían estar vinculados a su vida privada pero que revelan asuntos de interés público. 61. En cuanto al carácter de interés público, en su jurisprudencia la Corte ha reafirmado la protección a la libertad de expresión respecto de las opiniones o informaciones sobre asuntos en los cuales la sociedad tiene un legítimo interés de mantenerse informada, de conocer lo que incide sobre el funcionamiento del Estado, o afecta derechos o intereses generales o le acarrea consecuencias importantes. («) En otras palabras, el umbral de protección de la privacidad de los funcionarios públicos es menor por encontrarse de por medio el interés público, el cual demanda conocer la adecuada administración de fondos públicos y la integridad e idoneidad de los funcionarios estatales. Otro caso que se presentó en Estados Unidos fue el Duplantier v. United States. El punto medular de dicho caso refleja similitudes con el que se conoce en esta sede. En esa ocasión, un grupo de jueces planteó recurso ante la Corte de Apelaciones del Quinto Circuito por considerar que la Ley de Ética en el Gobierno de 1978 era inconstitucional al contener disposiciones que obligaban a los jueces federales a presentar una declaración financiera personal que era disponible al público. Al resolver la cuestión se afirmó, en primer lugar, que el hecho de que los jueces fueran nombrados -es decir, que no tratara de un cargo de elección popular- no incidía en el interés público de conocer sus finanzas personales, pues los jueces habían elegido aceptar el puesto público y asumir una responsabilidad pública, lo que ponía límites a su privacidad. La Corte estimó que existía un interés público que compelía a la divulgación de los datos, pues ello aseguraba la imparcialidad y honestidad de la rama judicial, instilaba confianza en el público acerca de la integridad y neutralidad de los jueces y, por último, informaba al público sobre los intereses económicos de los jueces para evitar los conflictos de intereses. En conclusión, el interés público era suficiente para subordinar el derecho a la privacidad de los obligados. Por su parte, el Tribunal Constitucional de República Dominicana resolvió en su decisión TC/0042/12 del 21 de septiembre de 2012 un recurso de revisión incoado por la Cámara de Diputados en contra de una sentencia de primera instancia que la obligaba a comunicar el nombre y el monto de los salarios de los asesores de dicha Cámara. La Cámara había comunicado al solicitante el número de asesores y el monto global de las remuneraciones, pero se negó a indicar el nombre y el salario por considerar esa información personal. El Tribunal Constitucional consideró: ³El derecho a la información pública tiene una gran relevancia para el fortalecimiento de la democracia, ya que su ejercicio garantiza la transparencia y permite a los ciudadanos controlar y fiscalizar el comportamiento de los Poderes Públicos (...) Asimismo, el derecho al libre acceso a la información pública tiene como finalidad controlar el uso y manejo de los recursos públicos y, en consecuencia, ponerle obstáculos a la corrupción administrativa, flagelo que, según se hace constar en el preámbulo de la Convención Interamericana contra la Corrupción (de fecha 29 de marzo de 1996) y el de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas contra la Corrupción (de fecha 31 de octubre de 2003), socava ³(«) las instituciones y los valores de la democracia, la ética y la justicia («) El Tribunal Constitucional considera que, aunque el derecho a la intimidad es un valor fundamental del sistema democrático, al igual que la protección a los datos personales, no pueden, de manera general, aunque sí excepcionalmente, restringir el derecho de libre acceso a la información pública, ya que limitarlo despojaría a la ciudadanía de un mecanismo esencial para el control de la corrupción en la Administración Pública («)´ Este recuento constitucional, unido a las normas nacionales que se dirá, evidencian la importancia que se ha dado al deber de transparencia en las finanzas públicas y en la labor del funcionariado público. Entonces, al haberse acreditado que, en el caso particular, bajo esa premisa y con fines meramente de investigación se puso a disposición de las autoridades competentes (Ministerio Público que tiene el monopolio de la acción penal) la información estrictamente necesaria y mediante los canales adecuados para guardar la confidencialidad, se reitera, ningún vicio se detecta. En esa línea el artículo 7 de la Ley de Protección de la Persona frente al tratamiento de sus Datos Personales establece: ³Artículo 7º²Libre acceso a la información. Es de interés público la información relacionada con el ingreso, la presupuestación, la custodia, la fiscalización, la administración, la inversión y el gasto de los fondos públicos, así como la información necesaria para asegurar la efectividad de la presente Ley, en relación con hechos y conductas de los funcionarios públicos («)´ Por otro lado, de acuerdo con el numeral 1 de la Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones No. 7425 se tiene lo siguiente: ³Artículo 1. Para los efectos de esta Ley, se consideran documentos privados: la correspondencia epistolar, por fax, te¸lex, telemática o cualquier otro medio; los videos, los casetes, las cintas magnetofónicas, los discos, los disquetes, los escritos, los libros, los memoriales, los registros, los planos, los dibujos, los cuadros, las radiografías, las fotografías y cualquier otra forma de registrar información de carácter privado, utilizados con carácter representativo o declarativo, para ilustrar o comprobar algo´ (se suple el destacado). Por su parte, el artículo 2 de esa misma ley especial indica: "Cuando resulte indispensable para averiguar la verdad, el Juez podra¸ ordenar, de oficio, a petición de la autoridad policial a cargo de la investigación, del Ministerio Público o de alguna de las partes del proceso, el registro, el secuestro y el examen de cualquier documento privado, siempre que pueda servir como prueba indispensable de la comisión de alguna conducta delictiva. El Juez realizará personalmente la diligencia, salvo en casos de excepcio¸n, en los que, según su criterio, pueda ser delegada en miembros del Organismo de Investigacio¸n Judicial o del Ministerio Público, quienes deberán informarle sobre el resultado de la diligencia.´ Para el caso concreto, el artículo 24 de la Ley No. 8422 (Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento ilícito) vigente desde octubre de 2004, establece que el contenido de las declaraciones juradas es confidencial, salvo para el propio declarante, y no impide el acceso que requieran las comisiones especiales de investigación de la Asamblea Legislativa, el Ministerio Público o los tribunales de la República con la finalidad de investigar y determinar la comisión de posibles infracciones y delitos previstos en la ley citada. Esta última disposición es posterior y especial (concreta para declaraciones juradas de funcionarios públicos) a aquella, de modo que la desplaza y, contrario a lo que plantea el recurrente, no le da carácter privado a esa declaración (al punto que enumera las oficinas estatales que pueden imponerse de su contenido), sino que establece un acceso restringido para efectos de terceros, cosa que es diferente. Y, si bien se incorporan en el documento algunos datos sensibles esto no cambia la naturaleza jurídica del documento y, por eso, se restringe su acceso. De ahí que el ente acusador estaba legitimado no solo para solicitar las declaraciones rendidas por [Nombre 001] sino también para examinar su contenido y utilizarlo para fines de investigación, por lo que el argumento debe ser rechazado. [...]"