The Buenos aires city prepare a letter to denounce this Monday before the Supreme Court the breach of the National State of the sentence that ordered to automatically and daily deliver 2.95% of the co-participating funds that the Nation had taken from it in the pandemic. The City understands that since last Wednesday, when the ruling was notified, the Nation has not complied with the court order for two days.
The path chosen is to denounce to the Supreme Court the breach of the National Bank, which must activate the drafts, without orders for embargoes for now. And, therefore, without rushing the Supreme Court, which has its times.
At the same time, Buenos Aires government lawyers They are also working on writing a criminal complaint that might reach the Banco Nacion board of directorsresponsible according to the ruling for making the daily and automatic deposit, the Ministry of Economy and the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers.
This second presentation, which is another way to summon the national government, would be channeled through the federal courts of first instance where there are already at least two criminal complaints once morest President Alberto Fernández, one from the Civic Coalition and the other from the United Republicans, for disobedience to the Supreme Court and breach of the duties of a public official. On Monday a third by Patricia Bullrich will be added.
The City had advanced that it was also going to request the seizure of the accounts to collect what the National State does not pay it, which is regarding 1,100 million pesos a day. However, for now, he preferred to leave this option aside. “We want to notify the Court of the breach of the sentence that today is already two days and that the Court take the necessary time to act; We are not going to ask for the embargo for now, ”she told THE NATION a senior Buenos Aires official versed in legal issues.
Another source from the City confirmed that the strategy and said that everything is currently under analysis and that they are waiting for the course of the event. “It is one thing to say that they are not going to default and another is see what they doWe’ll see,” said this official.
The example ahead of them in the City is the case of the province of saint Louiswhere the Court ruled once morest the government of Mauricio Macri to get your taxes back, but the execution of the sentence lasted four yearswith various proposals made by the Nation to comply with the sentence.
Meanwhile, from the side of the Nation, the State lawyers are working on the appeal of “revocation on the edge” that President Alberto Fernández announced that he was going to present himself so that the Court itself might return its decision. Although the appeal is not provided for in the procedural codes, consulted constitutionalists said that the jurisprudence was contemplating it, although for material errors and formal issues, not substantive such as this.
The deadline to submit it would be Three working days. If it is considered that the sentence was notified last Wednesday, the term would expire in the first two hours of court hours on Wednesday, since Friday was a holiday.
Regarding the recusal that the President said he was going to present once morest the Court, the specialist not only maintains that it is extemporaneousbut there are precedents from the highest court to support its rejection.
Beyond this activity in the two parts of the process, the Supreme Court might receive these writings and analyze whether it is appropriate to notify the counterparty of the appeal, which would take the deadlines beyond this week that begins and ends on Thursday, since Friday is a holiday.
Therefore, any decision that is made in this case of federal co-participation It will be analyzed in February at the conclusion of the judicial fair. The opening of the fair to deal with some matter is very exceptional and only for humanitarian reasons. The last precedent that is remembered occurred 21 years ago, with the case of Silvia Tanus. The Supreme Court authorized, on January 11, 2001, in an unprecedented ruling, to induce the labor of a woman who was carrying a seven-month-old baby with anencephaly in her womb, with no chance of survival.
Thus, despite the political vertigo that the case took, following the announcement of Alberto Fernandez that the ruling was “unenforceable”, the case will cool off in court, at least during the month that the summer vacation lasts.
This issue is also convenient to the Buenos Aires government who promised to pass a law in the City Legislature to reduce taxes if the Nation pays the co-participation. Last week he tried to pass the law, but the session fell due to lack of opposition support. Now in a period of extraordinary sessions, they need 40 votes to approve the law, but following the summer in ordinary sessions, 31 votes are enough, and the pro-government bloc has 32, with which it might pass without problems, an official told La Nacion of the economic area of the Buenos Aires government.
“We are going to continue working in the Legislature to issue an opinion and that 40 people are not necessary, but 31 can already be approved. The 31 votes are those of the ruling party, so it is a matter of time for that to happen. It is a commitment made and it will happen”, said the Minister of Economy of the City, Martín Mura. to CNN.
The analysis made by the City is that the national government was in a hurry to say that the ruling was unenforceable. It was enough to announce the appeals for revocation and the challenge and then negotiate the execution of the sentence, they point out. They believe that the wording of the statement stating that the ruling is “unenforceable” was encouraged by the most indignant wing of the Peronist governors and by Kirchnerism.
Another issue is the political aspect of the Court’s decision. The governors the governors of Buenos Aires, Axel Kicillof; from Catamarca, Raúl Jalil; from Chaco, Jorge Capitanich; from Chubut, Mariano Arcioni; from Entre Ríos, Gustavo Bordet; from Formosa, Gildo Insfrán; from La Pampa, Sergio Ziliotto; La Rioja, Ricardo Quintela; from San Juan, Sergio Unac; from San Luis, Alberto Rodríguez Saá; from Santa Cruz, Alicia Kirchner; from Santiago del Estero, Gerardo Zamora; from Tierra del Fuego, Gustavo Melella and from Tucumán, Osvaldo Jaldo signed the statement with Alberto Fernández, but not everyone is on the same page.
Some of the governors are considering asking to intervene in the file as affected third parties, since they understand that the funds that are ordered to be given to the City are taken from them. The Court said that this is not the case because co-participating funds must be deducted from those received by the Nation and not the provinces.
Some governors are enthusiastic, and their legal advisers seek to lower their bellicose tempers, but others are uncomfortable with the assault on the highest court because they have their own problems in court and they don’t want to upset the judges who have to decide their cases. That’s why cooling down the matter might be beneficial for everyone.
in privacy, Alberto FernandezOn the other hand, he is convinced of the certainty of his decision of last Friday and of the letter that he signed. He surprised his weekend interlocutors who called him to wish him a Merry Christmas with a class on constitutional law on the correctness of his decision. In his environment, they are working on the resources, knowing that beyond the immediate political uproar the case will end up losing stridency and will end up appeased by the torpor of the judicial summer.