The trust citizens place in the rule of law rests on the belief that public institutions act with impartiality, rigor, and decorum. When that trust is betrayed by those responsible for upholding it, the very architecture of democracy is shaken. In recent years, a phenomenon that is not new—but has taken on alarming proportions—has become impossible to ignore. I refer to the leaking of information from within the Public Administration, where certain employees, driven by personal interests, go so far as to sell elements protected by judicial secrecy. This is a criminal practice that threatens the integrity of the judicial system and undermines the fundamental principle of equality before the law.
How can one explain that an investigation about to begin is already being mentioned in the media? Such an occurrence allows only one plausible conclusion. Before any procedural act takes place, the number of people with access to information in a case is necessarily limited and bound by a strict duty of confidentiality. If the press is publishing details before the person concerned has even been notified, it means that someone has violated judicial secrecy, committing a serious offense that compromises the impartiality of the process and destroys the equality of arms between the State and the citizen.
An investigation that begins in the media before it begins within the Public Prosecutor’s Office is flawed from the start. It reveals that public exposure has been prioritized over legality, and that the objective is not to clarify facts but to create suspicion long before evidence is assessed by a competent judicial authority.
This phenomenon, unfortunately common in the institutional context we all know, does not arise spontaneously. It almost always results from deliberate acts committed by individuals who, while holding public office, choose to violate the ethical and legal principles requiring absolute discretion. When such violations are motivated by financial gain, the gravity becomes even greater. It means that a citizen’s honor can be sacrificed by a public employee who, instead of serving the State, serves their own wallet. This practice destroys the credibility of institutions and turns judicial secrecy into a black market where information that should remain protected is bought and sold.
Judicial secrecy, as established in the current legal framework, is not a legislative whim. It is an essential safeguard of criminal procedure, designed to protect the investigation, the presumption of innocence, and the dignity of the citizen. When public employees use their privileged access to sensitive information for profit, the issue is not merely a disciplinary infraction; it is a perversion of public service and a form of corruption that, due to its clandestine nature, silently corrodes the credibility of the State.
The unlawful disclosure of procedural elements creates an environment in which suspicion replaces evidence and the public arena overshadows the courtroom. A society that grows accustomed to seeing investigations turned into spectacle cannot expect justice—only noise, manipulation, and the destruction of reputations. I speak with the weight of someone who has personally felt the consequences of this mechanism. Information leaks function as a form of preemptive punishment, applied without trial or sentence, placing the citizen in a position of total vulnerability before a state apparatus that should protect them, not expose them.
Responsibility for this state of affairs does not lie solely with those who sell information, but also with those who purchase and disseminate it without demanding accountability. The media has a duty to inform, but it does not have the right to participate in the violation of the law.
The relentless pursuit of sensationalist news fuels this cycle of illegality. And as long as there are buyers, there will be sellers.
Combating this practice—which has become a structural problem—requires courage and determination. It requires serious internal investigations, exemplary sanctions, real criminal accountability, and an institutional culture that does not tolerate ethical breaches. It also requires that political leaders recognize the gravity of the problem and refrain from treating it as a minor issue. Democracy is not defended with speeches alone; it is defended through action.
I conclude by reaffirming that the leaking of information by public employees—especially when motivated by financial gain—constitutes a profound threat to the rule of law. As long as this conduct is not eradicated with rigor, we will continue to live in an ambiguous environment where judicial secrecy becomes an empty concept and where a citizen may be publicly condemned even before being heard by the competent judicial authority. Under such circumstances, freedom ceases to be a full right and becomes a fragile promise that the State has an urgent duty to restore.
César DePaço
Entrepreneur and Philanthropist | Honorary Consul from 2014 to 2020
Founder and CEO of Summit Nutritionals International Inc.
President of the DePaço Foundation
Unwavering supporter of Law Enforcement and Conservative Principles
Source: LusoAmericano