## Facts

- A citizen requested detailed records of the President’s foreign trips from July 28, 2001 through March 2002, including travel-related expenditures, flight and aircraft operating costs, per diems, representation expenses, delegation lists, itineraries, work agendas, and related information.
- The request was made by notarial letter to the President and framed as access to public information concerning official activities and use of public funds.
- The Executive’s legal defense argued the President was not the proper respondent because he did not personally process or keep the records, and also suggested the request was unnecessary because some information had been published in official instruments.
- A civil trial court dismissed the habeas data action as inadmissible, reasoning the President was not the custodian and that a specific administrative office was competent to handle such records.
- An appellate civil chamber affirmed the inadmissibility.
- On extraordinary appeal, the Constitutional Court reviewed whether the dismissal improperly prevented adjudication of the constitutional access-to-information claim.

## Issues

1. Whether habeas data may compel disclosure of detailed records concerning presidential foreign travel (expenses, delegations, itineraries, and agendas) as matters of public spending and official activity.
2. Whether a habeas data claim is inadmissible because the named respondent (the President) is not the administrative unit that processes, archives, or safeguards the records.
3. Whether any exception (national security, privacy, or legally recognized secrecy) justified withholding the requested information.
4. Whether the State’s duty of disclosure requires information that is complete, precise, current, and truthful rather than partial or generalized.

## Decision

- The Constitutional Court reversed the lower courts’ inadmissibility rulings.
- The Court granted the habeas data petition and ordered the Executive Branch, through the competent office, to provide the requested information on the President’s foreign trips for the specified period.
- The Court held the requested categories of information were subject to disclosure because they concerned public expenditures and official activities and no valid exception was shown.
- The Court rejected formal objections based on which internal office physically held the records, treating the Executive as institutionally responsible to produce the information.
- The Court required disclosure in a manner that was complete, precise, updated, and appropriate, and emphasized that information provided must be truthful and not altered or concealed.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional access to public information covers detailed records of official activity and public spending, including itemized travel-related expenses and logistical details, absent a valid, narrowly construed exception.
- For access-to-information enforcement, the State’s obligation is institutional: the Executive must ensure disclosure through the appropriate administrative unit even if the named authority does not personally maintain the files.
- Exceptions to disclosure (including national security, privacy, or statutory secrecy) must be specifically supported; the presumption favors disclosure where the request concerns accountability for public funds.
- The disclosure duty includes a quality requirement: public authorities must provide information that is truthful, complete, precise, and current, without distortion or concealment.
- Access to information is linked to a societal entitlement to certainty and accuracy about facts of public relevance, supporting transparency and accountability in government operations.

## Conclusion

The Constitutional Court held that habeas data is available to obtain detailed, accurate information on presidential foreign travel expenses and related official records, rejected inadmissibility based on custodianship formalities, and ordered the Executive to disclose the information because no valid secrecy exception applied.


Rodríguez Gutiérrez v. Toledo Manrique, Exped. No. 0959-2004-HD/TC (Peru Const. Ct. 2004)