Bolsonaro’s vaccination secrecy opposes public to private – 02/17/2023 – Power

The breach of secrecy to the vaccination card of former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL), defined by the CGU (Controladoria-Geral da União), is defended by transparency organizations. The legal relevance of disclosure after the mandate, however, generates divergence. Those who criticize it consider that the information, for example, adds little as evidence for their eventual accountability.

On Thursday (15), the CGU decided to grant access to the document after reviewing the case – Bolsonaro has always repeated that he has never been vaccinated against Covid-19.

In October 2022, the Planalto Palace had denied the Sheet access to card information relating to the vaccine against Covid-19 based on article 31 of the LAI (Law on Access to Information).

The quoted passage says that personal information that reaches someone’s intimacy, private life, honor and image can have their access restricted for up to 100 years.

For professionals working with the law, there was a distortion of the article in the Bolsonaro government, with denials of information of public interest. This would be the case with information about Bolsonaro’s vaccination, they say.

The main argument is related to the context of the pandemic. In the worsening phase of the health crisis, Bolsonaro promoted crowds, advised against the use of masks and politicized vaccination, spreading false theories, like the live in which he associated the vaccine with AIDS.

“From the point of view of social control, disclosure is fundamental, even thinking about accountability, because the president’s posture had a direct impact on the behavior of other people and, consequently, on the number of infected people”, says the Advocacy and Research coordinator from Open Knowledge Brazil, Danielle Bello.

She adds that the article itself used to deny access to the card says that the restriction cannot happen to harm processes of investigation of irregularities in which the data subject is involved, as well as the recovery of historical facts of relevance.

Marina Atoji, director of programs at the NGO Transparência Brasil and a specialist in the LAI, explains that the disclosure will be restricted to data from the vaccination card for the period of Bolsonaro’s presidential term, from 2019 to 2022.

“The public interest in disclosing information outweighs any damage to the former president’s privacy. It provides society with clarity about Bolsonaro’s behavior during the pandemic,” he says.

If Bolsonaro has not been vaccinated, as he claimed, it will be possible to identify how many times he has put himself and others at risk, adds Marina. If he was vaccinated, the lack of adherence to his own speech and the encouragement of risky behavior would be evident, while he prevented himself, completely.

Professor of State Law at the USP Faculty of Law, Floriano Peixoto says that the information may be important in the instruction of accountability processes originated by the CPI of Covid.

For lawyer Bruno Morassuti, co-founder of Sejam Sabendo, the argument about violation of privacy does not fit, as Bolsonaro held the highest position in the country and the interest in what he did in the period remains.

“The moment he voluntarily takes on the role of President of the Republic, the information related to him in this period is public”, he says.

On the part of those who criticize the CGU’s decision, the privacy of health information to protect Bolsonaro’s privacy and the lack of relevance in legal terms would justify maintaining secrecy.

“Knowing if he is a hypocrite for having lied about his own vaccination is not a reason to break the confidentiality of his health data now that he is no longer president”, says professor of constitutional law at FGV Direito São Paulo and lawyer Roberto Days.

He also says that, despite having contributed to the spread of the virus, Bolsonaro continues to have the right to privacy on medical matters. The impact of vaccination information for the investigation of possible crimes committed would not be relevant, he assesses.

The same reading is done by Danilo Tavares, professor of administrative law at Unifesp.

“Such information does not seem necessary to me for the investigation of the numerous civil, administrative and criminal offenses that he committed by not vaccinating himself and not wearing masks at public events. There are other types of evidence suitable for this”, he says.

Morassuti, from Ficam Sabendo, disagrees. “Not all information is disclosed for the legal impact, but for the political impact, which is relevant to debate the responsibility of public agents”, she says.

Another aspect highlighted by Insper professor Ivar Hartmann is Bolsonaro’s role in the debate on vaccination against Covid-19.

“By choosing to politicize the issue of vaccination, he cannot then expect that the decision to be vaccinated will be private only in relation to him”, he says, adding that because there are actions and investigations on the former president in relation to the pandemic, access to the information is relevant.

“Even if it had no effect on lawsuits, a central reason for the right of access to information is transparency in the political debate. Bolsonaro remains an actor in the political debate, he will possibly run for office again and the information has very relevant consequences”, he says. .