Mexico will force the authorities to respond to requests made by citizens on Twitter. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) determined that the constitutional right of petition can be exercised through social networksTherefore, government agencies will be obliged to respond, yes, under certain guidelines. The foregoing stems from an amparo lawsuit filed by a citizen, who did not receive a response from the Government of Guadalajara after making three requests to the official account on the platform.
The highest Constitutional Court of the country determined that a request made by Twitter must be dealt with in the same way. Minister Mario Pardo Rebolledo pointed out that the petitions find protection in article 8 of the Constitutionas long as they are made to an institutional account where the authorities carry out acts of interaction with citizens.
“The official use of the ‘Twitter’ platform by an authority, which, beyond an informative purpose, has involved the capture and attention of citizen requests, obliges said authority to respond to requests that it subsequently receives through that channel.”
Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Twitter)
The ruling of the SCJN is given after an amparo trial promoted by Joaquín Rivera Espinosa, a citizen who requested information on public spending from the Government of Guadalajara via Twitter. Rivera Espinosa also requested that a street be paved and that a “franelero” be penalized for setting aside parking spaces on public roads. In no instance did the local authorities respond, so the citizen went to legal channels.
Subsequently, a District judge denied the amparo after considering that Twitter is not an institutional channel to respond to requests. Upon appeal, the case was referred to the Supreme Court of Justice and the First Chamber ruled in favor of the citizen. Now, the Government of Guadalajara is obliged to respond to requests in your account @GuadalajaraGob or by a notification sent to the address of the affected party.
Article 8 of the Constitution of Mexico establishes that “public officials and employees will respect the exercise of the right to petition, provided that it is formulated in writing, in a peaceful and respectful manner.” In the case of Twitter, certain guidelines must be met to force authorities to respond to their citizens.
The First Chamber concluded that the petitions made through the platform find protection in Article 8 of the Constitution; as long as there is confirmation that:
- The respective authority is the owner of the account to which such requests are made
- Said authority has legally or institutionally authorized the use of that social network as part of the exercise of its official actions, even if this occurs from daily practice
- There are indications that the use that this authority gives to the platform is to capture, and where appropriate, respond to requests, among other purposes, and not just for media use or simple dialogue with individuals.
- What is expressed by the individual implies a genuine request, beyond a comment or opinion
All petitions must receive a written agreement from the authority to whom it has been addressed, which has the obligation to inform the petitioner as soon as possible.
The official account of the Government of Guadalajara, like other dependencies, interacts with its citizens. If a user makes a request on Twitter and the authority ignores it, he may proceed through legal channels. However, although the law is on your side, the citizen would have to wait a considerable time, since the protections will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
What will happen to the accounts of public officials?
Twitter has become an important communication channel for politicians. Article 8 of the Constitution of Mexico mentions “public officials and employees”, although The ruling of the SCJN does not establish whether it considers personal accounts.
There are specific cases, such as that of Rosa Icela Rodríguez, head of the Secretary of Security and Citizen Protection. The profiles of the official Y the dependence they are verified as government organizations by Twitter and would be considered official channels. The only drawback is that neither maintains a direct dialogue with the citizens, so it would not be required to respond.
Some authorities have staff that monitors mentions in personal accounts or government agencies and channels the requests. Based on the response of the SCJN, whoever carries out the action would be obliged to follow up on the citizen. Each case is different, so the protections will have to be reviewed individually.