The idea of privacy corresponds to the reserved expression of the intimacy of private and family life, guaranteed by paragraph 1 of article 26 of our Constitution.
Most citizens have an idea, at least approximate, of what privacy is. It is about delimiting a part of your life in which behaviors are freely adopted, being protected against interference from public authorities. This prohibited interference covers the destruction or erosion of privacy, which would happen, for example, if the State promoted public disclosure of the school your children attend, the medicines you regularly use or the taxes you pay.
It is common to hear privacy related to transparency. Why?
The idea of transparency originates from the Anglo-Saxon concept of open file, or open process – to anyone who wishes to access it. It is a concept within the scope of administrative procedure, that is, the procedure that leads to the making of a decision relating to the pursuit of a public interest.
In the private sphere, each of us is free to do what we want, freely expressing our will, without the need for explanations or justifications – just taking care not to disrespect imposing or prohibitive legal norms, notably criminal ones.
But in the public sphere this is not the case. The public decision maker does not act freely, according to his private interests: he is obliged to pursue the interests of the community, public interests. Therefore, you have a duty to explain the reasons why you decided. The transparency of public decisions is a condition of its indispensable scrutiny, enabling the discovery of the decision-maker’s private interests that may conflict with public interests. This is also why citizens have the right to access administrative records and archives (article 268, paragraph 2, of the Constitution).
One of the essential instruments of this scrutiny is knowledge of the decision-maker’s economic situation, which explains why he has to reveal it to the Transparency Entity.
The requirement for transparency, in addition to only falling on public decision-makers, does not affect the entire life of those who are subject to scrutiny: it does not deprive them of their private life.
When a media outlet publishes the properties owned by a public decision-maker, or, as recently happened, a list of objects acquired by the then President of the Republic in the last weeks of his term, without imputing them to any behavior contrary to the law, it is not promoting transparency: it is carrying out a wanton, an intolerable violation of someone’s privacy.
The defense of transparency cannot become a mix of gossip and punitive impulse, based on prejudices, assumptions and hasty judgments, using media exposure to destroy people’s image and reputation. And, with this, compromising the acceptance of public positions and reducing the efficiency of administrative action.
Leave a Reply