The Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP) and the presidency concluded last week with an exchange of letters and legal actions. The investigative body claims to be complying with the law, but the Executive considers that these are acts of intimidation.
According to analysts, the MP must justify its requests to avoid a violation of the right to preliminary hearing of officials. The MP may request information that is necessary or urgent to formulate a possible request for preliminary hearing, experts say.
Last week, the MP requested information from the Finance Ministry, headed by Jonathan Menkos. But the minister said that the requests were intended to generate intimidation and filed an injunction before the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ).
The legal dispute between the MP coordinated by María Consuelo Porras and the presidency of Bernardo Arévalo began months ago, following the first round of general elections last year, the entity in charge of the criminal investigation began to request information from the political group.
The requests range from the inauguration of deputies elected by said party, the appointment of ministers and even the inauguration of the presidential duo.
Last week, the MP requested information from the Finance portfolio, as well as requests regarding the inauguration of the pro-government deputy Andrea Reyes and the appointment of Menkos as Minister of State, the latter of whom was elected as a deputy.
The Attorney General’s Office (PGN) reported that they are considering becoming interested third parties in the appeal filed last Thursday, July 4, by Menkos.
Judicial background
Criminal law experts said that the type of information requested by the MP must be analyzed in detail, since there are constitutional rulings that support the requests for information.
Among them, the constitutional ruling of the accumulated files 778 – 2015 and 780 – 2015. In these requests for protection, a group of judges argued violations of their right to preliminary trial due to requests for information from the MP.
“The decision of a judge to accept the request made by the MP to authorize investigative measures does not violate the right of the petitioners to preliminary hearing – in their capacity as judges,” the ruling explains.
The document clarifies that these eventual requests for information might be useful for the formulation of requests for impeachment. “Such authorizations constitute preliminary actions to support a possible complaint and initiate criminal prosecution, in accordance with the provisions of article 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code.”
The 2015 constitutional court supported the requests for information from the MP, because some judges accused of apparent acts of corruption alleged violation of their rights. But the ruling declared that “ once morest the official who enjoys the right to preliminary trial, only those investigative acts whose loss is to be feared and those indispensable to base the request will be carried out.”
Recommendations
The existing jurisprudence on this type of scenario must be considered. This is the reading of Andrea Rabanales of the organization Be Just, an entity focused on strengthening the justice sector in the Central American region.
“They can make certain requests to put together what they need to request impeachment,” but it is necessary for the MP to respect the limits it has in order not to violate the rights of officials, said the expert.
“The requests would only be legally viable if the petitions constitute preliminary actions that support a possible complaint or lawsuit. Therefore, depending on the type of information, the right to a preliminary hearing would be violated or not.”
For his part, Alejandro Rodríguez, from the Center for Comparative Studies in Criminal Sciences, considered that greater certainty is needed from the MP. He agrees that information can only be requested that is necessary to formulate a request for impeachment.
“A public official cannot be investigated if a request for impeachment is not granted. Therefore, the MP must be clear whether the requests for information are to investigate officials and if this were the case, there would be an illegal situation.”
Although there is legal support for the requirements, the organizations that make up the Alliance for Reforms believe that there is ill will on the part of the MP, according to a statement by Juan Pablo Muñoz, one of its representatives.
“We are not surprised that the prosecutors of the MP are bordering on arbitrariness, if not even illegality. Since last year, the MP has become an enemy of the Executive because they are waging a legal war,” he said.
They respect the law
The MP indicated that there are no intimidation scenarios once morest officials of the presidency of Arévalo or of the ruling party, since each of the requests for information has respected the right of immunity of the officials.
“The investigations carried out by the prosecutor’s office were carried out in response to an investigation into the possible offering of money to deputies in exchange for voting in favour of a proposed budget increase,” the MP’s Department of Social Communication reported.
The entity added that “Pursuant to the provisions of the law, all institutions are obliged to provide the MP with the required information.”
They added that the prosecutors follow the protocols dictated by law, where there are no legal actions directed once morest any particular official.
“The actions carried out by the prosecution have not been directed at Minister Jonathan Menkos, who has the right to a preliminary hearing, which is why the distortion of the facts and the official defense that has been generated since the day the proceedings were carried out are striking. If, by virtue of the investigation being carried out, it is determined that other requests need to be made, these will be made as established by law,” the investigative body clarified.
#legal #battle #Executive #increases
