<15> Gov`t Avoids Information Disclosure

“No Information”, ”Confidential”…Hanging on until Litigation

# Case 1

In June this year, a reporter for Dong-A requested that the Government Information Agency release the original information containing facts about the administration of journalist rooms in other countries; but the request was refused on the grounds of being confidential. “Two citizens first requested the release of information but [we] decided it is confidential, and Dong-A Ilbo is no exception,” said a GIA official. The next day, Dong-A Ilbo published an article arguing that it is not understandable why the GIA should keep information on foreign cases closed when it had taken examples from other countries in justifying the Advanced Media Support System to the people. A few days later, the GIA called the Dong-A journalist, saying that it had decided to open the information after accepting the objections filed by citizens.

# Case 2

In May, a journalist of a daily newspaper requested that the Ministry of Construction and Transportation release information on the results of a “Customer Satisfaction Survey on Immovable Asset Policies.” About ten days later, the Ministry responded, saying it “will open information excluding the part that was used as material for personnel management and thus can impede fair practice of if.” The general satisfaction index, which was 63.6 over 100, was all that the Ministry of Construction and Transportation later opened. It never opened the result containing the satisfaction index in each category.

The Roh Moo-hyun administration, since its inauguration, has made clear its willingness to open information actively on numerous occasions.

Numbers seem to indicate that information disclosure is carried out to a considerable level. Last year, out of 300,398 requests were made for information disclosure, 262,681 cases, or 87.4%, were accepted (including the records of National Archives & Records Service).

But in many cases, the main pieces of information were either excluded or opened without real contents.

The poorness of the ‘information list’, opened by each ministry through its website, makes it difficult for journalists, let alone ordinary citizens, to search for the necessary information.

Journalism experts are worried that the people’s right to know will be seriously damaged and realize that the government’s press policies block press activities, in addition to the poor level of information-opening.

○ Irregular Standard for Confidentiality

In July, a researcher of a private research institution requested that both the Ministry of Unification and the National Archives & Records Service open information containing the list of recorded materials related to the first inter-Korean summit. But something extraordinary happened.

A few days later, the National Archives & Records Service provided the researcher with the full list of information.

But Ministry of Unification refused to open the same document, saying “(disclosure of the information) can have negative influence on the South-North relations and lay impediments on the fulfillment of unification policies.”

The researcher collected all necessary materials but filed an objection about the weird reaction of the Ministry of Unification. And the latter finally opened only a small portion of the list.

As shown above, the standard on open or closed information varies from one ministry to another. Such inconsistency is allowing many government institutions to interpret the requirements for confidentiality provided in Clause 1, Article 9 of Official Information Disclosure Act, at their will and to misuse the clause as a tool to refuse opening information on sensitive issues.

Moreover, 5% of the cases where information was decided to be confidential, or 638, were categorized as “others” without explanation on the reason for such a decision.

○ Quantity not Quality Sought in Information Disclosure

Another problem is that information involving sensitive issues was hardly opened though the number of cases regarding information disclosure was high.

In May 2005 the People`s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy requested the Ministry of Justice open information explaining the detailed causes for disciplinary actions imposed on some prosecutors. But the Ministry of Justice decided to keep it closed, saying the information contains facts that can ‘infringe privacy or personal freedom’. Later on, the People`s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy obtained the information with great difficulty through an administrative litigation.

In June this year, Solidarity for Economic Reform requested the Financial Supervisory Commission open an internal document that decided whether U.S. investment fund Lone Star was qualified by the Banking Act in 2003 when it underwrote Korea Exchange Bank. When the Financial Supervisory Commission refused, Solidarity for Economic Reform filed litigation for information disclosure at Seoul Administrative Court, and the litigation is pending to present.

Within the government some argue that the government should change its passive attitude toward information disclosure.

The Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs recently announced that it is promoting a measure to enact a provision to punish government bodies that refuse with ill intent to open information when requested.

○ Prior Blockade of Information Disclosure through Poor Information List

To request the disclosure of information one has to be aware of which government institution produced the necessary information. But many institutions are unwilling to provide the list of information they own.

In 2005, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs gave a guideline to government agencies “to update the list of open information more than once a month.” But few fulfilled this requirement.

On the website of the Public Procurement Service, the 2005 version of the list is still posted. The Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and the Ministry of Health and Welfare has not updated the list of information at all this year.

Because of poor categorization of the enormous amount of information, one has to pour a lot of time and effort into finding the necessary list.

“In developed countries such as European nations, government agencies ponder, with the people, which information is vital to the public and should be disclosed,” says researcher Jeon Jin-han of National Archive Research Group. “Compared to that, the South Korean government shows a far lower level of information disclosure.”

“Relevant systems and procedures should be improved so as to root out the attitudes of government employees who arbitrarily avert information disclosure,” says journalism professor Sohn Tae-gyu at Dankook University. “It’s a serious problem to adopt polices that hinder press activities without improving such a system.”

[Government Loses More Legal Cases on Information Disclosure than Before]

With the steep rise in the number of legal cases filed against the government or public institutions for refusing to disclose information, the percentage of cases in which the government or public institutions lost rises in unison each year.

According to the Supreme Court, September 27, 2007, the number of litigation for the cancellation of information disclosure refusal increases every year: 36 in 2002, 43 in 2003, 57 in 2004, 79 in 2005, and 99 in 2006.

In particular, 117 litigations for information disclosure have been filed this year, already surpassing the record of last year.

The ‘Annual Report on Information Disclosure 2006’, published by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs in August, shows that out of the 1,806 objections filed on closed or partially closed information, only 607 cases (34%) were accepted. In 2005, as well, 1,315 objections were filed and only 383 cases (29%) were accepted.

The percentage of the government or public institutions losing legal cases of information disclosure is increasing each year, too.

The percentage of the government or public institutions losing legal cases of information disclosure was as follows: 43.8% in 2003, 50% in 2004, 59.6% in 2005, and 66.7% in 2006. Same percentage has reached 60.7% (as of September 10, 2007) this year already.

Based on Article 9 of the Public Information Disclosure Act, the government or public institutions refuse to open information, saying, “When released, it will harm serious national interests, such as the security guarantee of the nation, will lead to remarkable impediment on the fair practice of tasks, and can infringe privacy.

But the steep rise in the percentage of government-lost legal cases shows the recent trend of court decisions laying more weight on the people’s right to know than on the interest of the government or public institutions.

“The rise in the percentage of the government-lost legal cases indicates that the government, increasingly, has been unfairly refusing information disclosure by expanding the boundary of information for confidentiality in interpreting law,” says a judge of Seoul Administrative Court. “In order to keep the government from making arbitrary interpretations, there needs to be a more precise definition of confidential information in the Public Information Disclosure Act.”