Challenge to the state secrecy decree

Translated from the Spanish original. If there is any discrepancy between the two versions, the Spanish text prevails. Read the original in Spanish.

The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has admitted for review the unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) filed by Dowglas Dayán Murillo Murillo, attorney and notary public (civil-law notary) at our firm, against Executive Decree 45870-MSP. That decree declared as a state secret all information related to the National Public Security Council, the Directorate of Intelligence and National Security (DIS), and the government working group known as “Fuerza Élite,” including their budgets and procurement.

The resolution admitting the action is dated September 4, 2026. The news was reported by La Nación and CRHoy.

What does the decree say?

The decree was signed on July 27, 2026, and has been in force since its publication in the official gazette, La Gaceta, on August 10. Among other things, it declares secret the police plans and protocols, the chains of command, the meetings and recordings of those groups and, in addition, the budget items, expenses and budgets, along with every stage of public procurement: preliminary studies, bids, awards and contracts.

The list begins with the phrase “include, but are not limited to.” This means the items listed are only examples, and there could be more secret information without anyone knowing what it is. The decree also requires public officials, advisors and private contractors to remain silent under threat of sanctions, indefinitely and even after their relationship with the State has ended.

What is an unconstitutionality action?

The Political Constitution (Constitución Política) is the highest law of the country: no statute or decree may contradict it. When someone believes a rule violates it, they can ask the Constitutional Chamber to strike it down. That request is called an unconstitutionality action.

Normally, the person filing it must have a case of their own pending before a court. But the Constitutional Jurisdiction Act (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) allows it to be filed without that requirement when the interests being defended belong to the community as a whole (article 75). That is what Mr. Murillo did: he acted as a citizen, in defense of everyone’s right to know how public money is spent.

What does the action argue?

The action asks the Chamber to strike down all five articles of the decree. Its main arguments, in plain terms, are these:

A decree cannot cut back a fundamental right. The Constitution guarantees free access to information on matters of public interest and makes an exception for state secrets (article 30). But limits on that right can only be set by a statute passed by the Legislative Assembly, not by an executive decree. The Access to Public Information Act, No. 10554 (Ley de Acceso a la Información Pública), says so expressly (article 6).
The only existing statute is much narrower. The General Police Act (Ley General de Policía) allows the internal reports and documents of the State Security Directorate to be declared a state secret, and only by resolution of the President of the Republic (article 16). It does not mention the Security Council, the Fuerza Élite or public procurement.
Public money must be open to scrutiny. By hiding budgets and contracts, the decree prevents citizens, the press and oversight bodies from knowing how public funds are spent, without even making an exception for the Office of the Comptroller General (Contraloría General de la República).
No one can know what is secret. The phrase “but are not limited to” leaves it to the government itself to decide, case by case and with no time limit, what information is withheld.

Mr. Murillo told La Nación that he is not challenging police operations against crime: “I find it unacceptable, under the rule of law, for the government to try to hide under the label of state secret everything related to the budgets, budget items, contracts and use of public funds intended to set up this Fuerza Élite unit.”

What did the Chamber decide?

The Constitutional Chamber found that the action meets the legal requirements and admitted it together with three other actions against the same decree, filed by other citizens and, according to the press, by a group of legislators. All of them are being handled in a single case file.

It also asked the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República), the Minister of the Presidency, the Minister of Public Security, the Office of the Comptroller General and the Ombudsman’s Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes) to submit their views within fifteen days.

One important point: admitting the action does not mean the Chamber has already ruled in favor of those who filed it. Nor does it suspend the decree, which remains in force until the judgment is issued.

What comes next?

When the Chamber rules, it may strike down the entire decree, only part of it, or uphold it. The action also asks, in the alternative, that if the decree is not struck down, the Chamber clarify that the secrecy does not cover the handling of public funds and cannot be invoked against oversight bodies. If the decree is declared unconstitutional, it is removed from the legal system (article 88 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Act).

At Murillo y Guzmán we believe that national security and transparency in the use of public money are not mutually exclusive. We will follow the case and report here when there are developments.

If you have questions about unconstitutionality actions, amparo petitions or access to public information, book a consultation.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case. To discuss your situation, book a consultation.