Judicial sources estimate that on April 11, the Council of the Judicial Career (CCJ) will notify Congress that the term of the current Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) expires on October 13, 2024. But the criteria that the Board of Directors has Congress is that, even if the notification arrives, they will convene nomination committees no later than next June.
The president of the Legislature, Nery Ramos, reported that they have until June 12. Which means that this body will lean towards the provisions of article three of the Nomination Commissions Law, “Call to form the Nomination Commissions.”
Social organizations, on the contrary, consider that it can also be convened in April, after the Congress is notified by the CCJ. This would give at least six months of work for the nomination committee to be formed and the work agenda to be developed.
New extension
The current magistracy 2019 – 2024 was elected on November 15, after a four-year delay in appointments. But, although Congress is about to receive the notification from the CCJ, the criterion that the Legislative Board will take is to wait the four months.
Ramos, when asked if there is a possibility of calling the applicants in April, recalled that there are judicial rulings that highlight the time of four months. “For this issue there is also a ruling from the Constitutional Court (CC) that establishes the deadlines and as the Board of Directors we will be respecting them,” he said.
The judges of the current CSJ and Courts of Appeal will remain in office for 11 months. The delay was due to the fact that initially an amparo was presented excluding candidates linked to alleged acts of corruption and then Congress postponed it for more than three years. the chose.
This extension of functions was negative for the justice system, according to jurists and analysts.
Not respecting the constitutional deadlines was a negative precedent, but there are possibilities that this scenario will be repeated if the commissions have little work time, according to Carmen Aida Ibarra, director of the Pro Justice Movement.
Legal actions
“It is speculated that there are groups that are going to try to hinder the process with protections and complaints to intimidate the commissioners, so that this leads to the extension of the functions of the current magistrates. This is something undesirable,” said Ibarra.
He added that actions to hinder the process could be: protection processes for excluded candidates and complaints against the commissioners. “It is a risk, especially when there are people interested in maintaining the current Cortes. It is a latent risk that the president of Congress has to face.”
For his part, Marielos Fuentes, representative of Guatemala Visible, believes that Congress seeks to ensure that the deadlines are respected. But he considers it prudent that, if there are possibilities of convening earlier, it should be done, as long as the opinion of the CC is obtained through a consultation.
She also sees a certain degree of danger that constitutional deadlines will be missed again. She highlights that the role of the next CSJ will be key in the 2027 general elections.
“There are great pressures and great interests to help or contribute to a specific person staying in office, both CSJ and Courts of Appeals,” Fuentes said.
Support consultation
At the level of Congressional Block Leaders, deputy Cristian Álvarez from the Commitment to Renewal and Order (Creo) group, suggested holding a consultation. This would give the applicants more time to work, he justified.
“Let’s ask the Legal Directorate of Congress for an opinion so that we can see if the Nomination Commissions can be convened before four months,” the legislator suggested.
The current legislature must elect 13 judges for the CSJ and 135 for the Appeals Chambers.
Previous election
The process of electing the authorities of the CSJ and Courts of Appeal for the period 2019 – 2024 was complex. A series of legal actions trapped her for four years.
The eighth legislature made a first call for the nomination committees in March. But legal action nullified that first call.
Later, during the work of the applicants, an investigation by the Public Ministry (MP) pointed out apparent illicit agreements for the integration of payrolls. It was the criminal case known as “Parallel Commissions 2020” where the main defendant was the political operator, Gustavo Alejos.
Then a ruling from the previous Constitutional Court (CC) stopped the election. It was the current constitutional magistrate who unraveled the case.
The ninth legislature of Congress placed the election of CSJ on the agenda in all plenary sessions. But the official alliance and opponents disintegrated a quorum before reaching that point.
#Congress #call #integration #candidate