We bring together information on the legal frameworks for the right to information from more than 100 countries.
You are here: Home Cases Ward of Songpa, Seoul Metropolitan City v. Election Commission of Seoul Metropolitan City

Ward of Songpa, Seoul Metropolitan City v. Election Commission of Seoul Metropolitan City

Case number:
2005 Kuhap 10484
Country:
South Korea
Date of decision:
12 October 2005
Court / Arbiter:
Seoul Administrative Court; reviewable by Seoul High Court ( First instance )

Relevant law :

Decision:

Local government officials are not entitled to request public information under the access to information law in their official capacity. As such, they do not qualify as "people" entitled to access to government information under the law.


Keywords:
Freedom of expression (including RTI as element of or integral to)
Judiciary or quasi-judicial body
Political information (including candidates, elections, political parties)
RTI law
Scope of information covered
Segregability (information should be disclosed if can be segregated from information that may legitimately be withheld)
Status of requester (including interest in information, citizenship, legal person, standing)

Case details:

Facts

On 28 January 2005, the Ward of Songpa, head of the local government, requested information from the Seoul Election Commission (Commission) on a report that the Ward had violated the Public Officials Election Act when hosting an event in honor of elderly people.  Specifically, the Ward wanted to know what had led the Commission  to suspect the Ward of a violation of the election law.  The Commission rejected the request, claiming that the Public Official Elections Act prohibits disclosure of the requested information in order to protect those who confidentially report on election-related crimes (articles 262-2), and thus the information is exempt from disclosure under the Official Information Disclosure Act (OIDA) (article 9(1)1).  The Ward made two arguments in response: (1)  even if the a portion of the requested information is exempt from disclosure, the Commission must separate the exempt portion of the information from the non-exempt portion, and release the non-exempt portion; and (2) the Commission’s vague denial of the request for the information violated the right to information (RTI) law.

Decision

The Court held that the legal basis for the request – the OIDA – did not apply to the Ward because the Ward was acting in his official capacity.  The Court explained that the RTI law protects the right to know, which is derived from fundamental principles of people’s sovereignty, human dignity, pursuit of happiness, and right to live as a human being, and is included in the freedom of expression the Constitution guarantees as a basic right (Constitutional Court, 88 Honma 22, Sept. 4, 1989).  However, the Ward, acting as a local government institution, is fundamentally the subject of public authority in charge of local administration under the Constitution.  The conflict between the local government and the central or other public institutions, therefore, does not concern the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution, rather it is a matter of hierarchy.  Because the local government institution  is not premised on the “natural rights of character,” the RTI law does not recognize it as the “people,” and it does not enjoy the same rights as the people, including the right to know and the associated right to access to government information.

Resources:

Full text of the judgment is not currently available.