Background and Relevance of the Case
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) upheld a June 2022 ruling by the now-defunct National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Data Protection (INAI) regarding the improper nature of an information reservation. The court also declared infundible the first review in matters of national security, which was promoted by the federal executive.
Key Parties Involved
María Estela Ríos González, a minister and consejera jurídica (legal advisor) of the federal executive, played a crucial role in this case. She promoted the legal resource to challenge the INAI’s decision, but was deemed legally unable to participate in the case due to her position.
Case Details
Among the 15 cases under review by the SCJN, 11 pertain to the appointment of admirals and vice-admirals in various naval positions in 2021, while the remaining cases concern the federal executive’s authorization for the participation of the armed forces in multinational exercises.
The Court’s Decision
According to the ruling, all controversial information is considered “public” as it has been directly disseminated by the Navy Secretariat (SEMAR) or is accessible through other public sources.
Executive’s Argument
The Consejería Jurídica (Legal Advisory) argued that certain information related to admirals’ names, positions, and training capacities should remain reserved. They requested the SCJN to overturn the INAI’s resolution, claiming that disclosing this information could jeopardize inter-institutional coordination between SEMAR and the President’s Office.
SCJN’s Response
The court clarified that declaring the executive’s arguments infundible does not imply that information related to this case cannot pose a risk to national security or should never be reserved. The court emphasized that each case must be evaluated individually to determine if the information should be classified as reserved.
Key Questions and Answers
- What was the main issue in this case? The primary concern was whether specific information related to naval appointments and military exercises should remain classified as reserved or be made public.
- Who were the key parties involved? María Estela Ríos González, a minister and legal advisor to the federal executive, promoted the case but was deemed unable to participate due to her position.
- What did the SCJN decide? The court upheld the INAI’s ruling, stating that the information in question should not be classified as reserved without individual case evaluation.
- Why did the SCJN make this decision? The court emphasized that each case must be assessed individually to determine if the information should be classified as reserved, and that the executive’s arguments were found infundible.
