The Attorney General’s Office asks to deny the lawsuit that would remove seven magistrates from the Court – Courts – Justice

(Read: The appointment of a senior official of the House of Nariño is declared null and void)

The lawsuits allege that election it was done irregularly because it was done without the decision-making quorum that the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court has, which is 16 people with 23 seats.

(Read: ‘Change of rules in cases of appraisers would lead to a debacle of justice’)

(Read: For 7 years, a worker had to give half her salary to a congressman)

The demands being studied by the Council of State ensure that the process was null because the elections could only be held with 16 votes, that the change in the interpretation of the regulation could not be made in an extraordinary session and because the vote for said names could no longer be done once the decision-making quorum was lost.

In this case, in the midst of the controversy over the lack of agreements in the Court to elect vacancies, the idea of ​​reforming the regulations was denied several times.

(Read: Mario Castaño: Supreme Court dictates an insurance measure for the senator)

In total there are 62 applicants to be appointed either by the Supreme Court of Justice or by the Council of State.

“The magistrates were chosen under the interpretation that was made of article 5 of Agreement 006 of 2002, which corresponds to the current Regulation of the Supreme Court of Justice, which showed as an endorsed criterion that the members of the Corporation could not be valued from the ordinary total composition, but from the reality of those present, valid in the constitutional period”, said the Attorney General.

(Read: Girón: Court confirms nullity of Carlos Román’s election as mayor)

According to the entity, there was no vice because with the departure of Judge Salazar from office, the Plenary Chamber was left with 15 people and they could not, in any way, generate the decision-making quorum on the 23 seatsbut about the 15 that were in practice.

“Additionally, to give a greater guarantee on the legality and legitimacy to decide on administrative aspects, if in the course of discussion the discussion is favored by this, without affecting the deliberation, the minimum number of affirmative votes to elect titular magistrates should be 12 , this time, taking as reference the ordinary total composition of 23 members; that is, despite having only 15 possible members at the time of adopting the decisions that are hereby questioned, the Corporation with that number continued to meet the ordinary deliberative quorum”, he added.

(Read: Supreme Court acquits ex-governor of Putumayo Iván Guerrero)

According to the Attorney General, the The Court found itself in a “factual impossibility” and in an “exceptional moment” that required the creation of a quorum based on the 15 people who were in office. And the only way then to solve what happened, apart from the one that was used, would have been the intervention of the executive for the issuance of extraordinary regulations.

“The interpretation made by the Court for the purposes of the election of the magistrates sued here was not capricious, arbitrary or unreasonable, but rather it is perfectly valid and plausible, which is why it is not appropriate to accede to the claims of nullity of the accumulated claims. “, said.This case is in the hands of Judge Luis Alberto Álvarez Parra of the Fifth Section of the Council of State.

Leave a Comment