Transparency in constitutionally relevant bodies

assessment and proposals

Abstract

Within the subjective scope of Law 19/2013, of 9 December, on transparency, access to public information, and good governance, one of the most controversial aspects is the mixture addressed by art. 2.1 f). Indeed, the Council for Transparency and Good Governance (CTBG) has endeavoured on several occasions to clarify the systematic approach underlying the precept when presenting its evaluation activity, which tends to include these subjects in the same group, sometimes together with others (constitutional bodies, bodies of constitutional relevance, regulators).

Following the CTBG's criteria, the following will be considered as ‘bodies of constitutional relevance’ for this paper: (i) the Ombudsman; (ii) the Court of Audit; (iii) the Council of State; (iv) the Economic and Social Council; and (v) the State Attorney General's Office. The aim is to analyse and compare the degree of compliance with their transparency obligations.

The work is based on the information published by the CTBG in successive summaries and evaluation reports, taking into account the evolution of both subjective performance and the evaluation methodology itself. Thus, while the results of the first evaluation (2016) led to considering these bodies as an example in the implementation of transparency, subsequent assessment (2021) have yielded different results, both in terms of active publicity and, above all, in the management of the right of access. Some of these bodies have even had to undergo subsequent follow-up evaluations due to low levels of compliance. The analysis culminates with the formulation of different proposals for improvement on all the fronts addressed.