Global Courant 2023-05-18 11:05:54
Manido is the legalistic ruse of mayors seeking re-election, former deputies under investigation or former officials who are dragging processes due to signs of corruption or serious attacks, which logically makes them unsuitable to run for office again. The Supreme Electoral Tribunal denies them registration under such principle established by law. In response, those accused, indicated or affected present appeals for amparo in the Supreme Court of Justice or the Constitutional Court, which informally grant the provisional authorization, with few and notorious exceptions that sometimes contradict other resolutions of a similar legal nature.
It is paradoxical that profiles questioned but protected, with strong evidence against them, emphasize and presume the “constitutional right” of said benefit as a pretext to be registered, as if there were no eloquent requirement of suitability and honesty contained in article 113 of the Magna Carta. Yes, the State is organized to protect the rights of citizens, but also to ensure the common good.
The responsibility of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal is precisely to exercise this registry of organizations and the nomination of citizens suitable for the performance of popular representation, from which comes the power to audit the acts of whoever intends to be a candidate. Although it is nothing new, the vast majority of the amparos filed in courts outside the TSE, often in an extemporaneously malicious manner, should be rejected in limine, above all so as not to further violate the status of “supreme” held by the electoral tribunal. Also by constitutional design.
There are currently 97 amparo appeals, most of them provisional, that delay the start of printing ballot papers, due to the dilemma of whether or not to include symbols and names of candidates. In all elected positions there are cases pending final resolution, a task that should be evacuated quickly and in accordance with the law by the CSJ and the CC.
The TSE endorsed this week, with the vote of twenty parties, the inclusion of candidates with provisional protection. The reason is the peremptory deadline to start printing ballots, which could not wait for the final resolution, especially if it is appealed by defense lawyers or detractors.
In this legalistic maelstrom, the insistence of certain prosecutors from the Public Prosecutor’s Office to expedite some pre-trial processes against politicians in contention while leaving previous requests inert, stranded in court limbo, despite the existence of indications of corruption, such as the case of the ex-deputy accused of the fraud of Q30 million to the Institute of Seismology, Volcanology, Meteorology and Hydrology, whose preliminary hearing was requested on January 30, 2022 and remains unresolved.
Thus, there are also extemporaneous challenges that threaten presidential nominations. Some of these objections are raised by ex-convicts subject to other processes, with an open conflict of interest. In any case, the temporality, the consequence and, to a certain extent, the responsibility of the TSE itself in terms of the objected processes must be weighed. At this moment, the legal certainty of the entire process must be privileged, at a critical moment in democratic history. Any blunder can become additional complications and wear.
