Kirchnerism presented the request for impeachment against the Supreme Court and advances in its attack against Justice

After making official the call for extraordinary sessions in Congress from January 23 to February 28, the

Court, through which it requests that the four members of the highest court be summoned.

In this way, Kirchnerism advances with its attack against the Judiciary.

However, the president of the Court,

like the rest of the courtiers,

the meeting of the Political Judgment Commission, which is controlled by the ruling party. .

The project was introduced in the lower house by fifteen deputies from the Frente de Todos:

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

and

The curious thing is that none of the signatories is a member of the commission, which marks the intention of Kirchnerism to commit the entire bench in this offensive against the Court.

In addition, in the presentation, the deputies of the Frente de Todos

, the number of witnesses would raise it above 40 people.

And among those summoned stand out the spokesman for the president of the Court,

, and

, Minister of Justice and Security of the Buenos Aires Government on leave.

In this case, the call is linked to the controversy generated by the supposed chats where D'Alessandro appears exchanging messages with officials of the Supreme Court and service providers of the Buenos Aires Government.

In this onslaught against the Judiciary, the ruling party will also summon the governors who signed the request for the prosecution of the members of the Court as well as the Minister of the Interior,

and the Treasury attorney,

The tension between the ruling party and the Judiciary worsened after the Court ruling that ordered the Government to restore to the City of Buenos Aires a percentage of the co-participation that the Government had taken from it during the pandemic.

Thus, the president and a group of like-minded governors agreed to jointly promote the

of the four members of the Supreme Court,

when issuing rulings.

The proposal, which is promoted by the pro-government deputy Eduardo Valdés together with other legislators from the Frente de Todos, consists of 410 pages.

Among the fundamentals of the project, the ruling party specified: "This request is made in the conviction that this process that is intended to promote will

of our republic, limiting itself to judging the reprehensible conduct of its members".

The Frente de Todos maintains that it will seek to "analyze the

to continue adequately exercising the position they hold, and thus guarantee the institutional quality, legitimacy and credibility of the Judiciary ".

"The facts that will be enunciated here expose an anomalous situation in which the

that decides, arbitrarily, to

of that one, thus breaking the basic pillars in which a republican system of government is established, especially the principle of division of powers", the text points out.

At this point, it indicates that "this situation

of our Rule of Law at risk,

that the powers of the State require to comply with the obligations assigned to them by the National Constitution".

The president of the Supreme Court of Justice, Horacio Rosatti.

Photo: Rolando Andrade Stracuzzi

Likewise, it accuses the members of the Court of having "carried out

on the constitutional powers assigned to the National Executive Branch and the National Legislative Branch, which implies that they

The text also states "the

that the aforementioned magistrates have dealt

of our country,

that make up the national public treasury, directly affecting to the provinces and generating an irreparable imbalance between them and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires".

According to the document requesting impeachment, to which

had access , the signatory deputies consider "

cited for the conditions established in the Internal Regulations of the Political Judgment Commission of this Honorable Chamber of Deputies of the Nation

denounced magistrates admissible".

"It is worth noting then that in this preliminary stage, even prior to the investigation, the

's purpose is to declare the admissibility of the presentation, and

, being reserved for the later stages, to seek the perfection and certainty of the guilt of the defendants, through the production of evidence and allegations about the imputed facts", details the project.

In addition, it clarifies that "

, since for this purpose the subsequent summary procedure is foreseen, first, and then the accusatory procedure itself, in the plenary venue of this Chamber and eventually through the rules established by the regulation of impeachment established by the Honorable Senate".

"Although the

as the other powers of the State do, this

The Constitution is clear in this regard, there is no absolute immobility, but rather that the judges remain in their charges for the duration of their good conduct," the document states.

The deputies emphasized that "

as a control tool and institutional act,

Court of Justice is verified, as is circumstantially demonstrated in this document with each of the facts that support the accusation, to

"Only in this way can

and prevent the life, honor and fortune of the inhabitants of Argentina, perhaps, from being subjected to the sum of public power, that is, the irrational government of the judges, which in this presentation is articulated and demanded," the letter indicates.

Criticism of the ruling on co-participation

After recalling that the Court ordered the National State to deliver to the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires 2.95% of the co-participating funds, they specified that the ruling "implies

, since, without ruling on the unconstitutionality of the law in question, orders the National State to refrain from applying a rule that is fully in force".

"It is completely exposed that the Court arrogates powers that are not its own and

. The Highest Court, after all, is instructing both the National Executive Power and the National Legislative Power, how to distribute resources, when this task is the exclusive responsibility of the latter two," they pointed out.

In this sense, the deputies indicated that "it is evident that the

and, therefore, as such, must be analyzed under the prism of the enormous political and economic impact that it causes within the scheme of federal coparticipation".

"The Supreme Court

that, starting in 2016, promoted raising the co-participation coefficient of the richest district in the country," shot the ruling party legislators.

In this context, they affirmed that "the magistrates

that would imply that the National Government should have serious consequences by ignoring federal regulations such as the Fiscal Pact and the Budget law voted by the Congress of the Nation. To the arbitrariness of this ruling we must add the illegality and the consequent economic damage against the State."

Finally, they linked the Court's ruling with the decision to finance the electoral campaign of the Buenos Aires Head of Government, Horacio Rodríguez Larreta: "In 2019, it was the International Monetary Fund that financed the truncated electoral campaign of then-President Macri. Today, almost four years later, it seems to be the Supreme Court of Justice who intends to do the same with the

"Abuses in the Council of the Magistracy"

The deputies questioned the highest court of Justice for the ruling in which the Court resolved by majority to allow the amparo action initiated by the PRO senators Luis Juez and Humberto Schiavoni to stop a maneuver by Cristina Kirchner to get one more place in the Judicial Council.

The ruling, with the votes of judges Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Juan Carlos Maqueda, declared the nullity of parliamentary decree No. 33/22 by means of which the vice president had designated as representatives of the second minority to integrate the Council of the Magistracy to the senators of the FDT Martín Doñate (as titular) and Guillermo Snopek (as substitute).

"It is clear that in the issuance of that ruling, the aforementioned magistrates arbitrarily decided to declare in force a law that the National Congress had expressly repealed, thus

and improperly advancing with legislative powers that are granted to them. expressly prohibited by constitutional mandate," they argued.

In this sense, they affirmed that "

of clear consequences: the seizure by assault of a constitutional body, which from the application of that ruling would come to be presided over by one of the members who signed it".

"The

by arbitrarily and authoritatively determining how the blocks in said Chamber should be organized. This implies a clear constitutional violation of the autonomy of the National Senate and its regulations, the that enjoys constitutional roots", they pointed out.

And they summarized: "The Court unduly advanced the powers of the Legislative Branch of the Nation by

by it; it subsequently invalidated resolutions of the presidencies of both chambers, ignored sentences of inferior judges competent in cases in force and analogous, it did so outside of a jurisdictional decision (by means of an Agreement) and in this way

to the political objectives that the Court has pursued since the issuance of the first ruling. ".