On November 1, 2024, the Framework Law on Access to Public Information (Law No. 10554) entered into force, introducing significant reforms regarding access to the fundamental right to public information. Among the most important are: the definition of who may request public information and the bound subjects (sujetos obligados) required to grant it; the procedure for rejecting requests, with free and gratuitous access being the rule; the electronic and financial facilities that public administrations must provide; and a detailed procedure for managing these requests, including compliance deadlines and the effects of notifications. Furthermore, it incorporates the concept of pre-existing information (información preconstituida), as opposed to complex inquiries for which additional delivery time may be requested; disciplinary sanctions for non-compliance with the law; and a catalog of matters that administrations must proactively publish on their websites.

Despite public information requests being based on the principle of gratuitousness, and the existence of a law that defines the procedure clearly and in detail, during the year 2025, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) sustained, but also rejected, a considerable number of amparo writs (recursos de amparo) seeking to safeguard the right of access to public information. Below, three elementary aspects to consider when exercising the constitutional right of access to public information are explained, featuring references to 2025 judgments from the Constitutional Chamber.

1. The Medium to Which Public Information Requests Must Be Directed

Even before the new law entered into force, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber, when analyzing the reports rendered by public institutions, took into account whether the email address to which the inquiry was directed was officially designated to receive this type of request. In Resolution No. 29243-2025, the Constitutional Chamber declared an amparo writ "inadmissible" because the administration argued that the email address through which the request was received was not intended for such purposes [1].

Nonetheless, the Constitutional Chamber has established two exceptions to the aforementioned rule: first, when the request is sent to an email address other than the official one but an acknowledgment of receipt is issued to the individual; and second, in cases involving public institutions that maintain a press office through which inquiries from administered parties are regularly answered as part of an institutional practice. In this latter scenario, the entity could also be condemned for failing to respond to an information request (in this regard, see Resolution No. 33994-2025).

2. Interpretation of the Deadline to Respond to Public Information Requests Made via Email

Within the scope of exercising the right to public information, this matter generates one of the primary causes for rejection by the Constitutional Chamber regarding the amparo writs filed. In this sense, resolutions No. 21082-2025, No. 05683-2025, No. 16652-2025, No. 12459-2025, and No. 10079-2025, among others, may be consulted.

In summary, if the petition is made via email, the 10-business-day deadline to respond begins to run on the following day. However, if it is submitted on a non-business day (weekend or holiday), it is understood that the petition was made on the next business day, and the deadline begins to run on the day following that date.

3. Not Every Request Made to the Public Administration Is Covered by the Right of Access to Public Information

The Constitutional Chamber has explained that the right to obtain a prompt response is not correlative to receiving an answer favorable to one's interests; thus, there is a right to petition, but not a right to obtain what is requested (Resolution No. 07850-2025). Likewise, it has made clear that disagreeing with a ruling does not imply a violation of fundamental rights (Resolution No. 30106-2025). Furthermore, the lack of a response to a legal consultation, or a request for the legal basis of an administrative action, does not, by itself, constitute a violation of the right of access to public information (Resolution No. 15329-2025).

For example, it is proper to request a copy of the administrative resolution that denied a construction permit; however, requesting the entity to modify said resolution in one's favor does not fall under the exercise of this right.

In conclusion: While the new law implies a significant development in access to public information, proper legal counsel can guarantee the effective exercise of this right.

[1] The new law establishes an obligation for all administrations to keep their website updated with the official medium for receiving information inquiries. This omission entails administrative sanctions.