The government resists changing the rules on the decree, but the format is defended by NGOs acting for data transparency, on the grounds that sending a project to Congress could bring risk of decharacterization of.
The discussion about the change in law that deals with personal information of public agents occurs within the (Comptroller General of the Union). Today, the text provides for restriction on access to information of intimacy, private life, honor and image of legally authorized public agents and the person to which they refer to a maximum of 100 years.
In the 2022 elections, President Lula promised to end the secrecy of 100 years. One of the petista’s first measures was. However, o. In July 2024, he ordered in the Declaration of Conflict of Interest of Minister of Mines and Energy, Alexandre Silveira.
That would allow anyone who had access to denied a document could request a reassessment of the decision after ten years.
He also sought to evaluate the public interest and automatically end up with the restriction of access to personal information five years after the death of his holder. The idea was to send as a bill to Congress, changing the lai.
However, civil society organizations have pressured that change occurs via decree on the grounds that any text referred to Parliament would endanger the current legislation. Therefore, the ideal, in their evaluation, is to make the change as an administrative act.
The CGU, however, sees with caveats the possibility, for fear that Congress can overthrow changes by feeling alive of the discussion.
Maria Vitória Launberg Ramos, the NGO Executive Director Stay knowing, defends the change via decree. “Stay knowing defends the change by decree, which is the safest way to make this change. It is adequate because the LAI text does not speak within 100 years. It speaks for a maximum period of up to 100 years,” he says. “Therefore, the government to create via normative act intermediate rules, whether from minor deadlines to different circumstances, no change in law is not necessary.”
“Civil society is very concerned about any concern any kind of bill to change the law of access to information in Congress, because the chances of setbacks are much greater than any potential benefit and it would not be appropriate to take this type of risk to legislation that is the most important for democracy and public transparency after the 1988 Constitution,” he adds.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
