At 7:12 p.m. Thursday, a fourth agenda of the day was brought to the House floor, including Senate Bill 63, which amends the Transparency Act. The measure was approved with amendments by the New Progressive Party (PNP, in Spanish) majority. Just 24 hours earlier, House Speaker Carlos “Johnny” Méndez had publicly stated that “there was no rush” to evaluate the bill and that it would be referred to the Judiciary Committee for a report, a process that never took place. “We’re not in a hurry,” Méndez had said during the only public hearing held on Wednesday, in which more than a dozen organizations were unable to participate.
The bill passed with 29 votes in favor and 24 against. Seven members of the PNP voted against it, along with the delegations of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD), the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP), and Project Dignity. The PNP representatives who opposed the measure were Fernando Sanabria Colón, Odalys González González, José “Che” Pérez Cordero, Emilio Carlo Acosta, Wanda del Valle Correa, Carmen Medina Calderón, and Jerry Nieves Rosario.
Until 6 p.m. on Thursday, representatives from all parties told the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (CPI) that they were confident the bill would not be considered. But as the legislative session neared its end, a last-minute agenda appeared, one that was never shared with the press. Senate Bill 63 was part of that package, and it was brought to an immediate voice vote. The minority microphones were never opened for debate.
The amendments added by the House at the last minute were largely procedural: they deleted pages 10 through 14 of the bill, ostensibly to force the creation of a Conference Committee with the Senate and trigger further negotiation.
Representative Víctor Parés, who chairs the Government Committee, said that before next Tuesday, the House would work on the actual amendments it intends to submit. “There will be many amendments; quite a few. Substantial ones,” he told CPI. Parés had said a week earlier that the bill would undergo as many public hearings as necessary, but that never happened. He also stated that it would not be considered during the current session, but rather in the one beginning in January 2026, which also proved untrue.
“What happened today doesn’t mean the bill ultimately has the votes to pass. It doesn’t mean it has the votes for final approval,” Parés added.
The Senate will reconvene next Tuesday at 11 a.m. The amendments are expected to be drafted between Friday and Monday, the PNP representative said.
Senate Bill 63, proposed by Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, would amend the Transparency and Expedited Procedure for Access to Public Information Act (Act 141-2019), despite unanimous public opposition from more than 20 community, media, academic, and civil society organizations. The legislative process has been marked by a lack of public hearings and citizen participation.
When it was introduced in January, the measure had no co-sponsors other than Rivera Schatz. It was not negotiated or supported by any other party, did not originate from any citizen petition, and was not part of the PNP’s campaign platform or government agenda. The Senate passed it solely with the majority’s votes, without convening public hearings, and issued a favorable report that included only one written statement of support, from the State Elections Commission, and more than five opposing testimonies.
Annette Martínez Orabona, executive director of the ACLU of Puerto Rico, immediately denounced the approval.
“The passage of Senate Bill 63, with or without amendments, is an affront to the people and to their fundamental right of timely access to public information, without fear of retaliation and with the goal of ensuring that public officials are held accountable. With this action, the House members who supported the measure have shown that Wednesday’s so-called public hearing was nothing more than a formality, rushed through to push the bill forward without justification,” she said.
Issel Masses, executive director of the organization Sembrando Sentido, agreed.
“It was a show hearing, not a serious legislative review process. Were it not for collective pressure, the hearing would have included only two speakers out of the dozens of organizations and communities that have spoken out against SB 63,” Masses said. “Civil society expressed itself clearly, broadly, and with evidence about how this bill would harm our constitutional right to know, yet those arguments fell on deaf ears. It’s disheartening to see those who are supposed to represent us undermining fundamental democratic rights,” she added.
Organizations that managed to testify during the single public hearing held Wednesday morning emphasized that the bill doubles the time agencies have to respond to information requests, allows data to be classified as confidential without due process, and removes privacy protections for those requesting information.
Wilma Maldonado Arrigoitía, president of the Overseas Press Club and editorial director of the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, said the approved bill cannot be fixed through amendments and fails to address the real problems affecting Puerto Ricans.
“It’s unfortunate that the House of Representatives gave in to pressure from the Puerto Rico Senate leadership and, contrary to what Speaker Carlos (Johnny) Méndez had suggested, brought the bill to a vote tonight without even issuing a report,” Maldonado Arrigoitía said. “We commend the 24 representatives who voted against it, including seven from the New Progressive Party who stood firm despite the pressure they faced. We trust they will maintain their vote if the bill returns to the House and demonstrate that the bicameral system truly represents the balance of power between the two legislative bodies,” she added.
The only two government agencies that expressed categorical support for Senate Bill 63 during the House hearings were the Department of Justice and the Office of the Inspector General, the very office tasked with overseeing government accountability.
Advocacy groups denounced the measure’s passage as a serious setback for transparency and for the constitutional right of public access to information.
This translation was generated with the assistance of AI and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and clarity.
