Justice rejected the protection presented by the PRO senator Luis Juez to order his appointment in the Council of the Magistracy of the Nation, after the maneuver made by the Front of All so that Martín Doñate occupied that place by the second minority of the upper house. As indicated to Infobae close to the senator, Judge will appeal the resolution. In the court’s opinion, the review of the appointment made in the Senate “exceeds” the function of the Judiciary.
To designate Doñate, the ruling bloc was divided into two and thus one remained as the second minority. This was objected by the PRO who days before had proposed Judge as a representative on the Council. The opposition said that it was a maneuver by the ruling party to keep a place in the body that appoints and sanctions magistrates and that it did so after the Court’s ruling to integrate the Council expired. Thus, the Judge presented an amparo in the Justice for him to be named in the Council.
The main arguments supported by the Judge, who reviewed the ruling, revolve around”, on the one hand, the alleged extemporaneity of the division of the Frente de Todos Bloc – a circumstance that, in his opinion, is unimpeachable, for having requested their designations dated previous – and, on the other, that said division has been carried out fraudulently, for which it is invalid”
In the ruling, the Federal Contentious Administrative Court No. 9 in charge of Pablo Cayssials clarified that “the fact that, in accordance with the regulations of the Chamber of Senators of the Nation, the members of said body have the power to organize in blocs – of two or more members – according to their political affinities”.
The ruling highlighted the jurisprudence that maintains that “in cases where acts carried out by other powers are challenged, the jurisdictional function does not reach the way in which such powers are exercised, since this would imply the invasion that must be avoided.”
“The latter is particularly applicable to the present case, since admitting the claim of the amparistas would imply delving into the assessment of the timing or the subjectivity of the partition of the Frente de Todos Bloc, all of which would inexorably lead to the judicialization of the decisions of other powers, putting at risk -in the words of the Supreme Court- the exercise of the functions that the Constitution assigns to each one of them”, said Cayssials. And he cited jurisprudence where it was concluded that judges cannot give an opinion on the way in which they exercise their powers. “Based on the arguments presented, it can only be concluded that the rejection of the lawsuit is imposed because it exceeds the framework of knowledge of the Nation’s Judicial Power,” he said.
Doñate with Cristina Kirchner
The magistrate also cited the prosecutor’s opinion, which stated that “there is not a case in which the rule established by the CSJN on judicial control of the exclusive powers of the HCSN of the Federal Congress can yield.” And he added that “it can only occur in response to an action outside the powers conferred by the Constitution; or when those exclusive powers are exercised in a manner other than that authorized by the supreme law […]”, an extreme that does not occur in cars, while “[…] the actors object to the action of the Presidency of the Chamber in relation to an issue that is regulated outside the Constitution and that exceeds the extremes outlined, being proper to the orbit of the functional autonomy of the Chamber in question and protected from the judicial intervention”.
In his ruling, the judge also noted that “the amparo action excludes those issues in which the arbitrariness or illegality that is argued does not clearly arise, since the subject or subjects that are open for discussion or those that require further debate and evidentiary contribution, are alien to this action, which is not intended to alter existing institutions, nor does it empower judges to replace their previously instituted procedures and requirements, nor does it authorize them to intervene in matters outside the jurisdiction conferred by law.”
And he added that “given the speed that is characteristic of this type of process, the alleged arbitrariness or illegality must be presented – as stated above – without the need for further debate and evidence. That is, the judge must warn without a shadow of a doubt that he is facing a situation that is blatantly illegal or resulting from an unreasonable will of the defendant.”
As indicated tonight by those close to the Judge, Together for Change will appeal the decision before the Chamber in Administrative Litigation.
In another court, the resolution on the protection requested by the head of the Front of All in Deputies Germán Martinez to oppose the appointment of the radical Fernanda Reyes, as representative of the Lower House, which was made by the president of the Chamber of Deputies, is pending. Serge Massa.
The Judicial Council, under the leadership of Horacio Rosatti, president of the Supreme Court of Justice, began operating this week with 18 members. The remaining two are yet to be sworn in: the representative of the Senate and the representative of Deputies.
In the midst of internal tensions, Máximo Kirchner questioned Martín Guzmán for not getting involved in “power disputes”