The
Constitutional Court ruled in 1989 that there is a constitutional
right to information "as an aspect of the right of
freedom of expression and specific implementing legislation
to define the contours of the right was not a prerequisite
to its enforcement."(1)
•
Combined gross enrolment ratio for primary,
secondary and tertiary schools, 2002/03: 92.9
•
GDP per capita (PPP US$) (HDI), 2003: 17,971
•
Total population (millions), 2003: 47
•
Total fertility rate (births per woman), 2000-05:
1.2
•
Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births),
2003: 5
•
Net primary enrolment ratio (%), 2002/03: 100
•
HIV prevalence (% ages 15-49), 2003: <0.1
[<0.2]
•
Undernourished people (% of total population),
2000/03: N/A
•
Population with sustainable access to an improved
water source (%), 2002: 92
Source:
UN Development Program, Human Development Reports
Data
The
Act
on Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies was
enacted in 1996 and went into effect in January 1998.(2)
It allows citizens to demand information held by public
agencies. Those requesting information must provide their
names and resident registration numbers and the purpose
for the use of the information. A separate Presidential
Decree allows access by foreigners who are residents, in
the country temporarily for education or research, or companies
with an office in Korea. Agencies must decide in 15 days.
The
Act does not apply to information collected or created by
agencies that handle issues of national security. There
are eight categories of discretionary exemptions: secrets
as defined in other acts; information that could harm national
security, defense, unification or diplomatic relations;
information that would substantially harm individuals, property
or public safety; information on the prevention and investigation
of crime; information on audits, inspections, etc. that
would substantially hamper the performance of government
bodies; personal information about an individual; trade
secrets that would substantially harm commercial or public
interests; and information that would harm individuals if
disclosed, such as real estate speculation or hoarding of
goods. Information, however, can be released once the passage
of time has reduced its sensitivity.
Agencies
must set up an information disclosure deliberative committee
to determine release. Those denied can appeal to public
agencies; further appeal can also be made to the head of
the central agency under the Administrative Appeals Act.
Judicial review is provided under the Administrative Litigation
Act in cases where an individual's "legal interest
is violated due to the disposition or omission of public
agencies." The courts have been active in promoting
a right of access and have found that disclosure should
be the rule not the exception.(3) The Supreme
Court ruled in October 2004 that the military could not
withhold information on the 1979 coup and the 1980 democratic
uprising.
The
Ministry of Government Administration is in charge of oversight
and planning for the Act and can inspect and review the
activities of state agencies.(4) The Cabinet
Legislation Bureau eliminated a provision in the draft bill
for an Independent Information Disclosure Commission.
The
Korean Government has also been active in promoting electronic
government as a means of improving access to information
and to fight corruption.(5) The Online
Data Release System allows for citizen to obtain information
from government departments using a website.(6)
However,
reviews have found problems with frequent improper denials
of requests, the failure of government agencies to publish
lists of available documents, and a disregard and non-enforcement
of the Act.(7) A coalition of citizens
and anti-corruption groups launched the Korean Social Pact
on Anti-Corruption and Transparency (K-Pact) in 2005, calling
for the law to be amended to improve public access to information
to fight corruption.(8)
The
Military Secrets Protection Act sets rules on the disclosure
of classified information.(9) It was revised
in 1993 following a decision of the Constitutional Court
that the Act was constitutional only if the secrets are
marked as classified following a legal procedure, and would
create a clear danger to national security.(10)
Two members of the opposition Grand National Party were
sanctioned by the National Assembly's Ethics Committee in
2004 for releasing a classified report that estimated that
Seoul would be captured in 16 days if it were invaded by
North Korea unless US forces intervened. A committee was
set up in 2004 to review the role of members of the Korean
military who collaborated with the Japanese occupiers.
The
Public Records Management Act regulates the maintenance
and use of archived records.(13) Most
are accessible after 30 years. Secret records must be reviewed
for declassification. A list of all records produced between
1998 and 2003 was released in January 2005 to facilitate
access to records.(14)
3
APRIL 2003 SOUTH
KOREA: Government to Release Portions of Cabinet Meetings The
Seoul Yonha, a Semi-official news agency in in the Republic
of Korea, reports that the Government Administration and
Home Affairs Ministry will begin to make sections of the
minutes of Cabinet meetings available to the public.
According
to Kim Doo-kwan, the Home Affairs Minister, "We
will open the minutes of Cabinet meetings to the public
that do not require special security clearance by consulting
with Cheong Wa Dae and taking into account the opinions
of other ministers." He added that while
the ministry will maintain a degree of secrecy concerning
minutes related to national security and diplomatic issues,
the general trend will be to move toward giving the public
more access to information on the details of Cabinet meetings.
7.
See Heungsik Park, Reform of Administrative Transparency
in Korea: The Case of Korea (Friedrich Naumann Stiftung).
Also see Transparency International, National Integrity
Systems 2001: Republic of Korea.
10.
Military Secret Leakage case, 4 KCCR 64, 89Hun-Ka104,
25 February 1992. See The Constitutional Court, The First
Ten Years of the Constitutional Court, 2001. http://www.ccourt.go.kr/english/decision.htm
See Kyo Ho Youm, Freedom of Expressional and National Security
in South Korea in Coliver. Secrecy and Liberty: National
Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
1)
Voice and Accountability: 0.73
2) Political Instability and Violence: 0.45
3) Government Effectiveness: 0.95
4) Regulatory Burden: 0.69
5) Rule of Law: 0.67
6) Control of Corruption: 0.17
