Transparency Brazil: Public Defenders violate LAI – 07/04/2023 – Power

Most Public Defenders in the country disrespect at least one rule of the Law on Access to Information, shows a report by the NGO Transparência Brasil.

According to the entity, the situation is alarming, above all because the violation represents a loss to the target audience of these bodies, which are the most vulnerable groups of the population.

One of the shortcomings of the Ombudsman’s Offices is precisely the duty to inform, in a clear and precise manner, what their service criteria are. That is, the absence of this information, or its poorly made disclosure, prevents or makes it difficult for people to recognize themselves as beneficiaries of the service.

Provided for in the Constitution, the Public Defender’s Office is responsible for providing full and free legal assistance to those in need. The constitutional text, however, does not define what is meant by “needy”. It is up to each body to set its criteria and, hopefully, make them visible to the population.

The report by Transparência Brasil shows that, in most cases, this does not happen. Of the 28 Defenders —each state has its own, in addition to the Federal District and the Union—, no less than 19 have serious flaws.

The honorable exceptions, according to the entity, are the Public Defenders of the following states: Mato Grosso do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo and Tocantins.

Only these four were evaluated with “high transparency”, as they accurately describe who can apply to the body, indicating, for example, the maximum income that the person can have to be eligible. In addition, the quartet also indicates the resolution that defines the rules.

On a lower level, the Federal District and Ceará have medium transparency Ombudsman Offices. They even bring the criteria in detail, but fail to indicate the resolution that regulates them.

Soon after come Acre, Mato Grosso and Rondônia, whose bodies were in the low transparency range, with an indication of the resolution that establishes the service criteria, but its description is generic.

The others entered the most worrying levels of the report: very low transparency or, even worse, no transparency. In this last category are Alagoas, Pará and Sergipe.

As a result, most Ombudsmen violate Article 7 of the Law on Access to Information (LAI), which determines that public bodies make available information on the activities carried out, including those related to their policy, organization and services.

For Transparência Brasil, it is urgent that the bodies adopt measures to reach the level considered high in the survey: “disclose, in an easily accessible place on their portals, the criteria that are used to define who will or will not be assisted, in addition to the resolution that determines such criteria”.

The NGO emphasizes that, given the characteristics of the target audience, the information must appear in simple language, both in written and audiovisual form.

“The fulfillment of transparency duties by public bodies contributes to the appreciation of institutions, insofar as it generates greater citizen confidence in the services provided. opening up opportunities for improvement and increased efficiency”, states the report.

passive transparency

The NGO also assessed the Ombudsman’s passive transparency, that is, their behavior in the face of requests for information —something also provided for in the LAI.

At first, that wasn’t even the goal. Transparência Brasil just wanted to obtain more information about the definition of service criteria, with the idea of ​​creating indicators that would allow better monitoring of activities.

It turns out that only nine of the requests for information were answered in full and on time. The other 19, in violation of Article 10 of the LAI, returned incomplete, out of time or, worse, fell into complete silence. This was the case of 13 Defenders, who did not respond, in addition to 2 others, who do not even have a channel for the request.

“As a result, the dissemination of crucial information for vulnerable groups to exercise their right of access to justice is compromised”, says the report. This is 11 years after the entry into force of the Freedom of Information Act.

---

LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY IN RELATION TO DISCLOSURE OF SERVICE CRITERIA*

• High – detailed and sharp resolution
  MS, RS, SP and TO

• Medium – verbose and does not point to resolution
  DF and CE
• Low – generic and points to resolution
  AC, MT, RO

• Very low – generic and does not point to resolution
  AP, AM, BA, ES, GO, PB, MA, MG, PR, PE, PI, RJ, RN, RR, SC, União

• no transparency
  AL, PA, SE

RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION*

• Fully attended
  AM, CE, PR, RS, RN, RO, SP, SE, Union

• No request channel
  AP, ES

• Did not answer
  AC, AL, BA, GO, MA, MT, MS, PA, PB, PE, RR, SC and TO

* Source: Transparency Brazil