Amid questions about the haste of the process and the sudden change in the terms of its analysis, the House of Representatives will evaluate this Wednesday the bill that would impose additional requirements for accessing public information, and everything points to it being brought to a vote before the end of the session on November 18.

“That is a matter that we will determine with the delegation. I was asked to give it a public hearing now, and I dare to presume that they intend to see it now, but I dare not be categorical, because I also want to see and listen to the parties and their concerns," said the chairman of the Legal Committee, New Progressive Party José “Che” Pérez Cordero, on the future of the Senate Bill (PS) 63.

The Department of Justice, the Office of Court Administration, the Office of the Inspector General, the Bar Association, the Center for Investigative Journalism, the Overseas Press Club of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Journalists Association were summoned to testify. In addition, an e-mail address juridico@camara.pr.gov was made available to receive additional papers.

In a last-minute move, last Thursday, House Speaker Carlos “Johnny” Méndez transferred the task of analyzing PS 63 to the Legal Committee, after two weeks before the consideration of the Government Committee, chaired by another New Progressive Party member Víctor Parés.

Méndez has not made any statements about the reasons for the transfer, although he was requested to do so. However, according to two sources of El Nuevo Día, there has been pressure from the Senate for the legislation to be taken up during this session. Parés had stated his intention to leave the analysis until January.

“The part of the terms is something we could be looking at as an alternative among what can be amended. I want to listen to the arguments to see if there is a possibility of making amendments, because there is a reality among government agencies that must be taken into consideration," Perez Cordero said. “In some agencies, there are limited human resources and we want to guarantee their good use, that government services are not affected and that there is access to information. My rule is to listen and promote dialogue," he said.

PS 63 amends the Law on Transparency and Expedited Procedure for Access to Public Information (Law 141-2019) to impose additional requirements on requests for information held by government agencies. Among other things, it would raise to 20 working days the term for the delivery of information, instead of the current 10 days, and 20 more days as an extension, for a total of 40. Adding holidays and weekends, the actual time would be two months.

It also requires that agency heads be notified of each request in order to be considered “not defective”, and mandates that the postal address and e-mail address be included in the requests, which, as some entities have warned, harms citizens without access to these resources, in addition to exposing applicants to “carping” or acts of persecution within the agencies.

Opposition groups have also questioned the sanctions -in their opinion, insufficient- that the measure contemplates against non-compliant agencies; the eradication of the right to receive information in specific formats -such as Excel or CSV-, which could make it impossible to analyze the data; and the elimination of judicial discretion to shorten terms in court, which would unnecessarily prolong legal proceedings.

As occurred with Act 141, PS 63 was approved in the Senate without public hearings; its evaluation was made through seven explanatory memorials and without discussion. Of the seven entities that submitted their positions before the Senate Government Committee, six opposed it.

“The way the House is working this issue promotes a lack of transparency. We are talking about it being able to be approved days before the close of session. There is no way that, with the set of entities that have expressed interest in deposing, there can be a broad discussion," stressed Puerto Rican Independence Party spokesman, Denis Márquez.

He was particularly concerned about the impact the legislation would have on communities, for whom public information is the mechanism to protect or vindicate their rights. “There is no way for you to oppose or favor a government action, or to question the granting of a permit, if you are not aware or do not have the information," he said.

This lack of data, Márquez added, would imply the closure of access to justice. “It has always been a kind of ordeal for communities to have access to information and, to the extent that this increases the terms, it complicates the panorama,” he expounded.

On the other hand, the spokesman for the Popular Democratic Party, Héctor Ferrer, said the delegation has not yet discussed the bill, but said he is inclined to cast a “no” vote and suggest it to the caucus.

He argued that, if approved, it could become a “norm” for the government to “hide” public information. He denounced that there is “a systematic pattern” of the State to prevent access to data, as has happened to the delegation in official requirements to the Police. “I am concerned that, through amendments, it becomes a norm,” he said.

“It should not have been a hurried discussion as is going to happen, to bring it down (to a vote) Wednesday or Thursday,” Ferrer said.

November 13 is the last day for the approval of measures by both chambers. The following five days will be used to settle differences.

---

This content was translated from Spanish to English using artificial intelligence and was reviewed by an editor before being published.