Lucia Salinas
04/19/2021 18:12
Clarín.com
Politics
Updated 04/19/2021 6:12 PM
The opening of the schools was completely judicialized. In addition to the proposal of the Buenos Aires government before the Court, and the protection that the Buenos Aires justice accepted to keep the classrooms open,
there are two opposing presentations in the same jurisdiction: the Federal Administrative Litigation
l. It is there where Carlos Zannini, the Treasury Attorney, wants the discussion to be rooted, and it is also where, in a kind of response to that question, the President of PRO Patricia Bullrich asked that educational establishments be kept open.
In an unusual scenario, three different judicial instances were involved to pronounce on the provisions of President Alberto Fernández in the DNU last week.
More specifically, what is supported by article 2, which ordered the suspension of face-to-face classes for fifteen days.
In Buenos Aires justice, the Contentious Administrative jurisdiction of the City was pronounced this Sunday.
Chamber IV of the Appeals Chamber ordered the Head of Government Horacio Rodríguez Larreta to guarantee the delivery of face-to-face classes from this Monday.
For the national government, which harshly criticized the judicial decision, the situation does not have to be resolved in that instance.
He maintains that the Buenos Aires Justice does not have jurisdiction to issue itself on the provisions of the DNU that, they understand in the Casa Rosada,
does not establish educational policies but of a health nature in the midst of a pandemic.
Where does the State want the matter to be discussed?
In the Contentious Administrative jurisdiction,
but Federal.
They do not trust the Buenos Aires Justice, since they point out that it is influenced by the head of the City Government.
To achieve the change of jurisdiction, the Treasury Attorney presented a letter on Monday asking that the entire debate on the opening of schools go to the Federal Administrative Litigation.
A fact: the administrative litigation intervenes
every time there is a lawsuit against the State, be it national or provincial.
And in addition, it is responsible for resolving claims of unconstitutionality.
That is why two non-governmental organizations went to the Buenos Aires courts requesting the suspension of the DNU article that temporarily suspended face-to-face classes, and also claiming that the Decree of President Alberto Fernández is declared unconstitutional.
As head of the state attorneys, Zannini requested the lifting of said measure, -that is to say, that the schools be closed for fifteen days- and considered that
the Buenos Aires justice ruling should be annulled "due to lack of competence
, in addition to not being found meeting the requirements for its issuance and being the Resolution, an act of extreme institutional gravity that puts general health at risk ".
Under the same argument, Zannini expressed that the resolution of Chamber IV of the Buenos Aires Litigation Chamber
is of "institutional gravity and the legal scandal
that these actions represent, considering that this implies the suspension in a local jurisdiction of regulations of a federal nature, unheard of,
affecting the power of the health police
in the framework of an international health emergency ".
This proposal has already been drawn and was settled in the court by
Esteban Furnari.
In the same jurisdiction, but in another court,
an argument contrary to that of Zannini was settled.
In this case, it was presented by the president of the PRO and former Minister of Security, Patricia Bullrich, and was in charge of the magistrate
Pablo Gabriel Cayssials.
Bullrich asked that the ruling of Chamber IV, made up of judges Marcelo López Alfonsín, Nieves Macchiavelli and Laura Perugini, remain in force.
Macchiavelli is the sister of Eduardo, Buenos Aires Secretary of the Environment
and Rodríguez Larreta's right-hand man in the national political army.
In her proposal, the former Macrista official asked
that the
presidential
DNU be declared unconstitutional
and insisted on endorsing the measure dictated by the Buenos Aires justice, that is, that the schools remain with face-to-face classes.
The main argument consists of the "unconstitutional incursion of the Executive Power in matters that the provinces and the CABA have not delegated to it and that, therefore, they keep for themselves, such as the hours of industries and businesses, the way in which they should attend to the public or the organization of schooling. All of these are issues that, according to the Constitution - the amparo maintains - must be regulated by the provinces or municipalities, whose autonomy, also guaranteed by the Constitution, is being subjugated " .
The same arguments asserts the brief to discuss the prohibition of attendance at classes, "a matter of the regulation of the provinces and the CABA," indicated in his statement Bullrich.