S. Korea moves to curb arbitrary information withholding, strengthen public's right to know

The government plans to tighten the criteria for withholding public information to prevent public institutions from arbitrarily denying disclosure requests.

Under the proposed changes, a general duty of confidentiality under civil service law would no longer be sufficient grounds to withhold information, and the scope of non-disclosure based on ongoing trials, investigations or corporate trade secrets would be narrowed.

The Ministry of Interior and Safety announced Thursday that it will put a proposed amendment to the Official Information Disclosure Act — formally titled the Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions — out for public notice from Friday through Dec. 16.

The amendment focuses on two goals: reducing arbitrary non-disclosure decisions by public institutions to strengthen the public's right to know, and preventing administrative waste caused by improper disclosure requests.

First, the bill would make explicit that a general confidentiality obligation under civil service law alone cannot serve as grounds for refusing to disclose information.

Lee Yu-na, director of the information disclosure system division at the Ministry of Interior and Safety, said at a briefing held Wednesday: "A provision that merely imposes a general duty of secrecy — such as the confidentiality obligation for civil servants under the State Public Officials Act — cannot by itself justify withholding information. By contrast, we intend to clarify that non-disclosure is permissible when a specific law, such as the Public Service Ethics Act, explicitly designates certain information as confidential."

The range of information that can be disclosed in connection with trials and investigations will also be expanded.

Information will no longer be eligible for non-disclosure if there is no direct risk that its release would affect the outcome or deliberation of a trial, or if an investigation has concluded and there is no concrete, objective basis to expect it will be reopened.

To address the practice of withholding information on the grounds that a decision-making or internal review process is still under way, the bill would explicitly designate "unconfirmed information" — material whose release could impair the fair conduct of official duties — as a non-disclosure category.

For corporate trade secrets, the bill would limit non-disclosure to information qualifying as a trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and would raise the threshold for withholding from "a risk of significantly harming legitimate interests" to "a clear risk of concrete loss."

The range of information that public institutions must proactively disclose without a formal request would also be expanded.

New additions include policy information related to public health and safety, audit findings and follow-up measures, results of policy research projects, and outcomes of disciplinary proceedings against civil servants. Membership lists of various government committees, meeting outcomes and minutes would also be included.

The bill would also reform the appeals process for information disclosure decisions.

Under current law, objections can only be filed against decisions to withhold or partially disclose information. The amendment would allow appeals against rulings that the requested information does not exist, as well as against decisions to disclose.

Information disclosure review committees would be required to conduct in-person deliberations as a rule, and the period for processing objections would be extended from seven days to 14 days.

Administrative appeals over information disclosure decisions, currently handled by metropolitan and provincial administrative appeals commissions and their education counterparts, would be consolidated under the Central Administrative Appeals Commission to improve the expertise and consistency of rulings.

The bill also seeks to protect civil servants handling disclosure requests and to block abusive or repetitive requests that waste administrative resources.

Public institutions would be given explicit authority to close cases involving requests accompanied by verbal abuse, insults, defamation or threats. Requesters whose cases have been closed for improper conduct a certain number of times could have their access to the integrated information disclosure system suspended — though they must be given an opportunity to submit their views, and the matter must go through a review by the information disclosure committee.

Requesters who have not paid disclosure fees would also be barred from filing new requests until outstanding amounts are settled.

Last year, about 170,000 requesters incurred disclosure fees, of whom roughly 33,000 — about 19 percent — had unpaid balances.

Interior and Safety Minister Yun Ho-jung said the amendment "aims to prevent arbitrary non-disclosure, broaden the scope of appeals and actively expand information disclosure to foster a healthy culture of openness," adding that the government would "provide stronger guarantees for the public's right to know."