Transparency in Mexico City: A Step Backwards for the Right to Information?
The year 2026 casts a shadow over transparency and access to information in Mexico City (CDMX). The recent reforms, culminating in the dissolution of InfoCDMX and the transfer of its responsibilities to the Comptroller’s Office, are being met with apprehension by experts and former officials. This shift, which centralizes the guarantee of the right to information within the executive branch, signals a potential regression in the city’s commitment to public accountability.
The Demise of InfoCDMX: A 20-Year Legacy Ends
On December 15, 2025, the Mexico City Congress approved the dictamen to extinguish InfoCDMX, the Institute of Transparency, Access to Public Information, and Personal Data Protection of Mexico City. This marked the end of a 20-year history for the autonomous body, which was established in 2006 following federal reforms on governmental information and transparency. The move has sparked concern, particularly as secondary laws for these reforms are not yet in place, leaving citizens in a precarious position regarding their right to access information on public administration and the use of public funds.
María del Carmen Nava Polina, former commissioner of InfoCDMX from 2018 to December 2025, expressed her dismay to Reporte Índigo. She highlighted that the original intent behind establishing autonomous transparency bodies was to remove discretion from the executive branch in providing information. The current reforms, she argues, effectively reverse this progress, concentrating power back into the executive’s hands.
The Comptroller’s Office: Judge and Party?
One of the most significant concerns stemming from this reform is the designation of the General Secretariat of the Comptroller’s Office as the new body responsible for guaranteeing the right to information. Unlike InfoCDMX, which was an autonomous entity, the Comptroller’s Office is an integral part of the central government. Nava Polina warns that this creates a fundamental conflict of interest: the Comptroller’s Office will effectively act as both judge and party in transparency complaints.
Under the new model, each obligated entity is expected to have a guarantor body reporting to the Comptroller’s Office. This means that any complaints regarding non-compliance will be directed against, and resolved by, the very department they are complaining about. “The comptroller’s offices themselves are playing the role of judge and party. So that’s the complexity, rather a setback, because if people, the few who have found out the way to follow to obtain information, complain to the same institution that provided it to them. It’s complex to understand, that’s why it’s a setback,” emphasized Nava Polina.
Furthermore, during this transition period, there is no InfoCDMX plenary that can address citizen complaints and grievances. While InfoCDMX continues to process information requests, the absence of a commissioner plenary means that resolutions for non-compliance with the Transparency Law cannot be issued.
A Look at the Resources and the Future
Despite the legal extinction of InfoCDMX, resources for its operation were allocated for 2026. According to the constitutional reform and the Transparency Law, the Congress has 180 days to enact the necessary legislative reforms and adjustments for the transition to the new model. However, until these laws are passed, citizens filing complaints will find themselves in a legal limbo.
Nava Polina also stressed the importance of preserving the historical work and memory of InfoCDMX during this transition. She warned against the potential loss of information, citing past instances at the federal level where the deactivation of transparency platforms led to significant data loss. Preserving this historical record is not only crucial for accountability but also legally mandated under the General Law of Archives.
A Broader Trend of Centralization?
The situation in Mexico City reflects a broader trend of centralization in guaranteeing the right to information across Mexico. The shift from autonomous bodies to executive-dependent entities raises fundamental questions about the future of transparency and citizen participation in governance. While proponents of the reform may argue for greater efficiency or alignment with governmental objectives, critics fear that it will inevitably lead to a less accessible and less accountable system.
The coming months will be critical in observing how the new institutions operate and whether they can indeed guarantee access to information in a simple, timely, clear, and beneficial manner for society. The challenge lies in balancing governmental control with the fundamental right of citizens to know how their public administration functions and how their resources are being utilized. The question remains: will Mexico City’s commitment to transparency endure this significant structural change, or will it succumb to the risks of a centralized and potentially less independent oversight?
