CHAPTER 22
MEDIA, INFORMATION ORDER, AND DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE
Article 138 — Freedom and Pluralism of the Media
Freedom, independence, and pluralism of the media are guaranteed.
The state shall not establish or tolerate a monopoly of political information, propaganda, or media ownership incompatible with democracy.
No public authority may use regulation, licensing, allocation of state advertising, taxation, procurement, security pressure, or administrative measures to silence, capture, or favor media for political purposes.
Media pluralism shall be protected by law. No single person, company, or group of related entities may own or control more than thirty percent (30%) of the total audience reach of any media category — including television, radio, print, and online news — in the national market. The independent media regulator established under Article 139 shall monitor and enforce this limit.
Foreign state-controlled entities — including foreign governments, state media organizations, sovereign wealth funds, and entities in which a foreign state holds a controlling interest — are prohibited from owning, controlling, financing, or directing any media outlet operating in the Republic. Private foreign investors who are not state-controlled may hold up to twenty percent (20%) of any media outlet. All foreign ownership, regardless of amount, shall be publicly disclosed in real time through the official media ownership register.
Article 139 — Prohibition of State Propaganda Monopoly
The Republic shall not maintain a monopoly of political propaganda, state narrative, or information dominance over the public sphere.
Public communication by state institutions shall be factual, lawful, and non-partisan.
State resources may not be used to construct a cult of personality, party domination, or ideological monopoly.
An independent media regulator shall be established by constitutional law to enforce media pluralism, ownership rules, content standards consistent with this Constitution, and the prohibition of state propaganda. The regulator shall be institutionally independent from the Government, Parliament, and political parties. Its decisions shall be subject to judicial review. It shall publish annual reports on the state of media freedom and pluralism in the Republic.
Article 140 — Independent Public Broadcaster
An independent public broadcaster shall be established by constitutional law.
The public broadcaster shall serve the public interest, democratic debate, cultural development, education, and impartial information.
The public broadcaster’s governing board shall be appointed through a multi-actor process: one-third nominated by Parliament by two-thirds majority, one-third by a council of professional journalism associations, and one-third by civil society organizations through a transparent public process. No single appointing body shall control the board. Members shall serve fixed non-renewable terms and may not be removed for editorial decisions.
The public broadcaster shall receive a guaranteed annual budget established by law and automatically indexed. This budget may not be reduced below the preceding year’s level in real terms without a two-thirds majority vote of the Lower House. The budget shall not be conditional on editorial content or political compliance.
Constitutional law shall ensure: a) editorial independence protected from all external instruction; b) equal access for all registered political parties during election periods; c) public accountability through annual independent audit; d) transparent governance without political control.
Article 141 — Editorial Independence and Protection of Journalists
Journalists, editors, and media institutions have the right to operate free from censorship, intimidation, arbitrary prosecution, unlawful surveillance, or economic coercion for their lawful professional activity.
Protection of journalistic sources is absolute except where a court issues a specific order requiring disclosure solely to prevent an imminent threat to life. Source protection may never be overridden for the purpose of identifying a whistleblower, exposing political criticism, or investigating lawful journalistic activity.
Violence, threats, strategic harassment, surveillance, or abusive legal proceedings against journalists for lawful public-interest reporting are prohibited. Such offenses shall be investigated by the Prosecutor General’s office independently of ordinary police, and shall be treated as aggravated offenses. Cases involving attacks on journalists shall not be closed or suspended without public reasoning subject to judicial review.
Journalists engaged in public-interest reporting shall not be compelled to reveal sources, submit unpublished material, or disclose their methods of investigation in any legal proceeding unless a specific court order is issued under the strict standard of paragraph 2.
Article 142 — Right to Information and Public Data
Every person has the right to receive information from public authorities.
Public information shall be open by default unless restriction is strictly justified by law, necessity, and proportionality.
Any person requesting public information shall receive a response within thirty (30) days. Any refusal shall be in writing, stating the specific legal ground, and is subject to review by the Information Commissioner established under Article 17a of this Constitution and to expedited judicial review within fourteen (14) days.
The following information shall be proactively published in accessible digital form without requiring a request, updated within twenty-four (24) hours of any change: a) state budgets and execution reports; b) public procurement contracts and outcomes; c) legislation, regulations, and draft laws; d) public appointments and declared assets of officials; e) party finance disclosures; f) court schedules and published judgments; g) all non-classified state data and statistics.
Article 143 — Algorithmic Transparency of State Platforms
State digital platforms, automated systems, and algorithmic tools affecting rights, access to services, public discourse, voting, benefits, law enforcement, or public decision-making shall be lawful, explainable, reviewable, and non-discriminatory.
Persons affected by automated decision-making have the right: a) to know that automation was used; b) to receive an intelligible explanation; c) to seek human review; d) to challenge the decision before a competent authority or court.
State secrecy, trade secrecy, or procurement confidentiality may not be used to shield unconstitutional algorithmic governance.
The Data Protection Authority established under Article 15a shall conduct mandatory independent audits, fairness testing, cybersecurity review, and rights impact assessments for all state algorithmic systems before deployment and annually thereafter. Audit results shall be published. A system that fails audit may not be used until deficiencies are remedied and re-audit confirms compliance.
Human review of an automated decision affecting a person shall be completed within fourteen (14) days of the person’s request. Failure to provide human review within this period entitles the person to treat the automated decision as void pending review.
Article 144 — Digital Public Sphere and Democratic Integrity
The state shall protect the integrity of the digital public sphere while respecting freedom of expression and information.
Regulation of digital platforms, online campaigning, political advertising, and state digital communication shall be guided by: a) transparency; b) equality of democratic participation; c) non-discrimination; d) accountability; e) judicial review.
Hidden state manipulation of online discourse, covert domestic influence operations, unlawful bot networks, and secret propaganda campaigns directed at the public are prohibited. The Prosecutor General shall investigate credible reports of such operations. The parliamentary intelligence oversight committee shall monitor compliance and may compel disclosure of state digital communication activities.
Article 145 — Restrictions on Media and Information
Any restriction on media freedom, public communication, or access to information shall be permitted only by law and only where strictly necessary in a democratic society.
Restrictions must satisfy legality, legitimate purpose, necessity, proportionality, and independent review.
General censorship, blanket blocking, prior restraint, and politically motivated information control are prohibited and have no legal force. Any law, administrative act, court order, or security directive purporting to impose general censorship, blanket blocking of media or platforms, or prior restraint on publication is void. The Constitutional Court shall annul such measures within forty-eight (48) hours of application by any person or actor with standing under Article 90. Emergency declarations may not be used to impose general censorship or blanket information controls.