The government is specifying criteria for judging information subject to non-disclosure in order to prevent public institutions from arbitrarily deciding to non-disclose information.
It clarifies that information cannot be kept confidential solely due to the general duties of confidentiality, while narrowing the scope in which information can be kept confidential for reasons such as trials, investigations, or corporate trade secrets.
The Ministry of Public Administration and Security announced on the 5th that it will announce the amendment to the 'Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions' (Information Disclosure Act) containing these contents from the 6th to the 16th of next month.
This amendment focuses on strengthening the public's right to know by reducing arbitrary non-disclosure decisions by public institutions, while also preventing waste of administrative power due to unfair information disclosure requests.
The key is to specify the criteria for judging five types with relatively high non-disclosure rates among the eight reasons for non-disclosure stipulated in the current Information Disclosure Act.
Although the current law stipulates that information held and managed by public institutions be disclosed in principle, it has been pointed out that some institutions refuse to disclose information by excessively interpreting the reasons for non-disclosure.
According to the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, the average information disclosure rate over the past three years was 94%, including partial disclosure. However, this figure is calculated by excluding cases processed due to lack of information, complaints, inquiries, etc. from the total number of cases received.
First, it was decided to make it clear that disclosure of information cannot be refused based on laws that stipulate general duties of confidentiality.
Lee Yu-na, head of the Information Disclosure System Department of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, explained at a briefing session held the previous day, "Articles that stipulate a general obligation to comply with secrecy, such as the obligation of public officials to keep secrets under the National Civil Service Act, cannot be the basis for non-disclosure of information. On the other hand, in cases where non-disclosure of specific information is specified, such as the Public Official Ethics Act, we are trying to make it clear that non-disclosure is possible."
The scope of disclosure of information related to trials and investigations will also expand.
Cases where there is no concern that it will have a direct impact on the hearing or outcome of the trial, or where it is not concretely or objectively acknowledged that the investigation will be concluded and resumed, are excluded from non-disclosure.
In order to eliminate the practice of disclosing information because it is in the decision-making or internal review process, 'unconfirmed information' that is likely to interfere with fair business performance when disclosed is specified as subject to non-disclosure.
In relation to corporate trade secrets, the subject of non-disclosure is limited to trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and the judgment standard is strengthened from 'fear of significant harm to legitimate profits' to 'clear fear of causing specific losses'.
The amount of information that public institutions must disclose in advance without request is also increasing.
Policy information related to public health and safety, audit results and follow-up measures, policy-related research service results, and civil servant disciplinary results are added. Lists of members of various committees, meeting results, and meeting minutes are also included.
The appeal process for information disclosure decisions will also be improved.
Previously, objections could only be raised against non-disclosure or partial disclosure decisions, but in the future, objections can also be raised against decisions regarding ‘absence of information’ or disclosure decisions.
The Information Disclosure Council will operate on the principle of face-to-face deliberation, and the processing period for objections will be extended from the current 7 days to 14 days.
Administrative appeals for information disclosure, which were handled by the administrative appeals committees of provincial and provincial offices of education, will be unified into the Central Administrative Appeals Commission to increase the expertise and consistency of decisions.
A basis is established so that public institutions can terminate requests for information disclosure that include verbal abuse, profanity, slander, threats, etc.
If the number of repeated unfair claims that have been terminated exceeds a certain standard, use of the integrated information disclosure system can be suspended.
However, the claimant was given an opportunity to submit his opinion and had to undergo deliberation by the Information Disclosure Committee.
For claimants who have not paid the information disclosure fee, new claims can be restricted until the unpaid amount is settled.
Last year, there were about 170,000 claimants who incurred information disclosure costs, of which about 33,000, or about 19%, did not pay.
Minister of Public Administration and Security Yun Ho-jung said, "This amendment seeks to actively expand information disclosure and create a sound information disclosure culture by preventing arbitrary non-disclosure and broadening the scope of objections. We will further guarantee the people's right to know."
