BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

15. In the subject, it is not even possible to speak of privacy or private life, since the data subject to the disclosure in question concern public agents as public agents themselves; or, in the language of the Constitution itself, state agents acting “as such” (§ 6 of article 37). As for the physical security of the employees, whether personal or familiar, of course, it will be somewhat fragile with the nominalized disclosure of the data being discussed, but it is a type of personal and family risk that is mitigated by the prohibition of the revelation of home addresses and IDs of each employee. Moreover, it is the price paid for the option of a public career in a Republican state. State that only by explicit legal enunciation based on the Constitution is that it ceases to act in the space of transparencyor visibility of its acts, especially those related to those items necessarily present in the annual budget law, as is the case of public revenues and expenditures. It is the reason that the attacks on such budget law are typified by the Constitution as “ crimes of responsibility ” (item VI of article 85). 16. In short, this high prevalence of the principle of administrative publicity is nothing but one of the best ways of realizing the Republic as a form of government. If, on the one hand, there is a necessary republican way of administering the Brazilian State, on the other hand, it is the citizenship itself that has the right to see its republican administered State. “How” the public thing is administered preponderate over “who” administers it – Norberto Bobbio would say –, and the fact is that this public way of managing the state machine is a conceptual element of our Republic. 17. In any event, the refusal to take precedence over the principle of administrative disclosure would, in the present case, be regarded as a serious breach of public policy. 18. I keep the decision under review, dismissing the regimental appeals. This is my decision. It is inferred from the statement that the constitutional principle of administrative publicity, as set forth in article 37, caput, of the Federal Constitution, was the main normative provision that guided the vote. In support, the command inscribed in item XXXIII of article 5 was invoked, according to which “ everyone is entitled to receive from the public agencies information of their particular interest or of collective/generalinterest, which shall be provided within the law, under penalty of responsibility, except those which confidentiality is essential to the security of society and the State ”, especially so that the citizen can exercise the right of denunciation before the Courts of Accounts, which is given by article 74, paragraph 2, of the constitutional charter. It is also worth noting that the eminent rapporteur has stated that, in his view, the nominal disclosure of public servants’ salaries does not affect their fundamental right to privacy and private life, which would not be affected, because the data subject to disclosure is related to the exercise of public office. In addition to the reasoning cited above and which incorporates his vote, Judge Teori Zavascki points out that the Law on Access to Information (Law 12,527/2011),

189