Global Courant 2023-05-20 11:05:25
Without losing the equidistance, impartiality and objective approach with respect to any organization participating in the electoral process, it is impossible to free from suspicion the provisional protection granted by the Sixth Chamber of Administrative Litigation at the request of the secretary of the party called “Change” -belonging to the children of former presidential candidate and ex-convict Manuel Baldizón—against the “Prosperidad Ciudadana” party, PC, for alleged formal defects during their assembly process. Derived from this, the room orders the PC’s participation to be suspended and with this it would leave presidential candidate Carlos Pineda out of the race, who occupied the first place of preferences, according to data from the Free Survey, at the beginning of the month.
Only 36 days before the appointment with the polls, any retroactive measure that blocks any candidacy, duly evaluated, processed and registered within the legal terms established by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, is a blow to the institutionality of the elections, especially if the The argument put forward is not a common order crime but linked to technical aspects over which the TSE has supremacy and preeminence. The challenge presented on May 5 by the general secretary of the “Change” party should have been filed before the Citizens Registry or, in any case, before the plenary session of electoral magistrates.
The provisional protection of yore has concrete effects that can be very serious on citizen confidence in the electoral system if it later runs out of matter. Because it is a technical aspect, the evidence should be quickly evaluated so that due process and the right to elect and be elected prevail, which would not be violated for Cambio but would be for the citizens.
In the case of Manuel Baldizón, his aspiration to a deputation was rejected because it was an unsuitable profile: a case similar to that of former president Alfonso Portillo, who was not registered either. Both share the condition of having served a prison sentence after admitting money laundering crimes: Portillo, for appropriating donated funds, and Baldizón, for laundering funds linked to drug trafficking. His impediment has constitutional status.
On the other hand, an underlying grudge can be inferred, since Pineda was the first candidate for “Cambio”, but he left it shortly after Baldizón’s release and unsuccessful nomination for legislative candidacy. Said circumstance is alien to the case tried and protected, but since it is a political matter, it should be evaluated within the motivations and purposes of the appeal. The amparo is a constitutional legal figure that should serve to help citizens in the face of threats to their rights and not to trip up ex-allies and rivals.
The three members of the room who sign the amparo are Juana Solís Rosales, president; Alba Azucena López Racanac, member I and Nadya Amabilia Morales de León, member II. The three must weigh the historical effects that fall on them by having admitted the appeal and its provisional resolution. In any case, they must work to draw up a definitive resolution, well-founded with the advisory opinion of the Electoral Tribunal, since otherwise there would be a conflict of institutional jurisdictions. In addition, there are another 97 judicial appeals pending resolution that undermine citizen confidence in the process of election of authorities. These are the labyrinths into which the judicialization of politics leads.
