The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The Court asked Attorney General Eduardo Casal for his opinion on the validity of the re-election of 91 Buenos Aires mayors


Highlights: The Supreme Court of Justice is set to rule on whether a law that allows 91 mayors to run for re-election is unconstitutional. The decision will be made on June 24, the same day as the elections. The law allows the mayor of a city to stand for a fourth term, even if he or she has not been re-elected in the last four years. The case is not related to the case of Sergio Uñac, who was found guilty of violating the constitution by running for a third term in San Juan.

After the fulminating sentence against the claims of Sergio Uñac in San Juan, the highest court must decide on a request that affects two-thirds of the communal leaders.

After the adverse ruling for Sergio Uñac and his electoral pretensions to go for a fourth term in San Juan, the Supreme Court of Justice asked the Attorney General of the Nation, Eduardo Casal, his opinion on another delicate law for the political leadership: the one that enables 91 mayors to seek re-election on Buenos Aires soil. questioned last week. Once the chief prosecutor has ruled on the matter, the highest court will be in a position to declare this regulation unconstitutional or not.

With the electoral calendar underway and nine days before the parties present their alliances to the Electoral Justice, key decisions remain to be taken at the Talcahuano Street Palace. The next important date is June 24, when the political spaces present the lists of pre-candidates. Inthe past, there will only be fifty days left for citizens to go to the polls in the Simultaneous and Mandatory Open Primaries (PASO).

The members of the Court are aware of these dates, and will begin to analyze the proposal of the PAIS party, which with the sponsorship of constitutionalist Andrés Gil Domínguez requests the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Buenos Aires Law that enables the mayors to seek re-election in this year's elections.

The discussion differs from the San Juan case, where it was discussed whether Sergio Uñac's candidacy for a fourth term for governor violated the limits imposed by the provincial constitution.

However, in the judgment in that case, the concurring vote of Minister Carlos Rosenkrantz went further with respect to the discussion on reelections, and did not refer only to the situation in San Juan. It opened the door to a debate that may be the starting point for other cases.

Quoting Juan Bautista Alberdi, Rosenkrantz recalled that re-election "distorts the republican government, because in some way it tacitly introduces something of the monarchical governments, that is, of the perpetuity of power in the hands of the same ruler."

Under this approach, he also argued that the lack of alternation "affects the existence of an open system in which citizens can compete for access to public office under general conditions of equality," understanding that those who perpetuate themselves in power and continue to compete, against their electoral opponents "enjoy an important preeminence, because they have mastery of the political agenda, greater coverage in the media and control of the instruments of state power."

This was considered by the minister of the Court, as an "asymmetry" that breaks the "general conditions of equality" that should govern political competition and that is accentuated as the re-elections of the same person multiply.

The concepts expressed in his vote lit a warning light in several municipalities of the province of Buenos Aires: 91 of 135 mayors appeal to the law now discussed that enables them to seek re-election this year.

The constitutionalist Gil Domínguez sponsored the president and representative of the Open Political Party for Social Integrity (PAIS)-Buenos Aires District, Oscar Héctor Alva, to ask the Court for a "declaratory action of unconstitutionality" against the Province of Buenos Aires, which made a series of modifications regarding the limitations for community leaders to seek re-election.

The spirit of the presentation maintains that a "patch" was made to the Buenos Aires electoral law that is "unconstitutional, because it allows 91 Intendants of the Province of Buenos Aires to be in the privileged position of being the only, exclusive and exclusive subjects that would have the possibility of being in office for 12 years from the sanction of Law 14,836. Just them, not one more."

On this situation, the Court requested the opinion of the Attorney General, Eduardo Casal. The peculiarity is that on this occasion an emergency period was not established as happened in the case of the province of San Juan.

Judicial sources explained to Clarín that the case is not related to what was discussed around the candidacy, now discarded, of Sergio Uñac. "On this occasion the provincial constitution is not discussed, but it is the discussion about a law" and in that case, its coexistence with the republican guarantees established in the National Constitution.

Once the judgement of the chief prosecutor is known, the judges of the Court will be in a position to analyse and rule on the case.

The amendments complained of

What was argued in the complaint is that Article 3 of Decree Law 6769/58 ("Organic Law of the Municipalities") originally established that "the Mayor and the councilors were directly elected by the people, they will last four years in their functions and may be re-elected. The Council shall be renewed by halves every two years."

On September 22, 2016, during the governorship of María Eugenia Vidal, that article was modified through another regulation and was drafted as follows: "The Mayor and the Councilors will be elected directly by the people, will last in their functions the term of four (4) years and may be reelected for a new period. If they have been re-elected, they could not seek another term."

It happened that with this modification a transitory provision was voted that maintained the following: "The period of the Intendants, Councilors, School Counselors, Deputies and Senators at the entry into force of this lawwill be considered as the first period." That detail was modified in 2021.

Therefore, the presentation before the Court claims that this repeal "implied ignoring the principle of progressivity and non-institutional regressivity, which postulates that once a certain normative stage of institutional guarantee has been reached, it is not possible to go back, unless reasonable arguments are presented to justify it."

See also

They estimate that the Court will rule on a precautionary measure against the indefinite re-election of Gildo Insfrán

See also

Cristina Kirchner is nervous about Javier Milei and in the opposition there are scenes of despair

Source: clarin

All news articles on 2023-06-05

You may like

Trends 24h


© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.