The new ruling alliance makes use of old legislative practices

In 15 days, the current ruling alliance confirmed a budget increase, but to do so it resorted to practices from other legislatures that were questioned at the time.

This, according to documentary records and the opinion of independent analyst Alejandro Quinteros, who exposed what he believes to be a series of “vices” that are not new in the hemicycle.

The legislature approved a first budget increase on August 13. To achieve this, it held a voting event in effect for more than an hour.

The Constitutional Court (CC) suspended the first decree, but last Tuesday, once again under a national emergency, Congress reaffirmed the extension.

Opposition deputies said they asked to speak and were ignored, something that the now-government members criticized during the Vamos presidencies at the head of the Board of Directors.

“We could say that the parliamentary dynamic is the same as in previous legislatures, or even worse, because Movimiento Semilla, now an independent bench, has presented itself as different and not more of the same, but it is doing exactly the same things,” Quinteros said.

In the last legislature, it was common for Vamos to deny the opposition the right to speak, but now Allan Rodríguez, former president of the legislature and head of the Vamos bloc, demanded that the situation be reversed.

“That is revenge and a negative cycle from which Guatemala does not emerge and does not seem to emerge. Those people did it to me, so I will do it to them when I am in power,” Quinteros said.

Other practices

The analyst and the documentary records show other ways of achieving what previous legislatures sought, although these were not observed in the approval of the readjustment.

The defunct Partido Patriota (PP), with Gudy Rivera as president, disbanded the Board of Directors to interrupt the session. Likewise, Roberto Villate, with the also defunct Líder party, once spent more than five hours speaking.

During the mandate of Álvaro Colom, the PP – as the opposition – blocked the discussion of the budget project at the last minute, and the then Board of Directors stopped the clock inside the chamber to conclude with the approval of the decree, which had a constitutional deadline.

Other practices regulated by the Organic Law of Congress include quickly reading the initiatives that are known, but without falling, according to experts, into filibustering – or blocking parliamentary work.

However, the excessive use of the word is used to encourage deputies to walk the corridors in search of other congressmen while agreements are being reached.

Because of these types of practices, since 2012 Congress has had a Manual of Legislative Procedures and Parliamentary Practices, which establishes the powers of legislators.

There are other methods used to stop sessions. According to parliamentary sources, one is used regularly by the former president of Congress, Mario Taracena.

It consisted of “offending” other deputies in order to seek the suspension of the session.

Legal bases

Unlike the first extension, which was suspended, the second one has solid legal bases, according to constitutionalist Edgar Ortiz.

“The argument of a fraud of law seems weak to me, because the CC is not saying that no budget increase should be made. The CC is saying that an interpellation cannot be interrupted to approve a budget increase,” he said.

Some opposition deputies said in the session that they would consider legal action, but according to Ortiz, since the extension was approved with a new bill, there would be no legal impediment to decree 17-2024.

“Congress has heard a new initiative and it is not subject to the court’s protection. It is not, in my opinion, because the CC did not question the substance of the law that was discussed, but rather that the interpellation could not be interrupted,” he insisted.

Other comments point to the fact that the protection in the final resolution could leave two decrees in force for the same extension. However, Ortiz believes that there are parliamentary mechanisms that resolve this type of dilemma.

“What happens if the Constitutional Court decides in its ruling that decree 16-2024 should be followed? There would be two extensions. But let us remember that Congress had not sent the decree to the Executive. There is a precedent for the 2020 budget and Congress can archive an approved initiative if the plenary decides so,” he stressed.

The decree for the new budget extension was approved with 114 votes, according to records.