The Congressional Constitution Commission will debate this Friday, November 24, the forecast that incorporates the suspension procedure of the President of the Republic for the cause of temporary disability declared by Parliament.
The prediction wants to modify article 68 of the Regulations of Congress so that the suspension of an acting president is proposed through a motion on the agenda.
Said motion must have the signatures of at least 20 congressmen to be presented. In addition, “the factual and legal grounds on which it is based must be specified, as well as the documents that prove it or, failing that, the indication of the place where said documents are found.”
In the session following the account, the plenary session of Congress evaluates whether the request for the suspension of the head of state is admitted for debate, which requires the vote in favor of at least 39 parliamentarians.
Debate and voting take place between the third and tenth day after the motion was admitted. Like the procedure for a presidential vacancy, the president may exercise his right to defense personally or through a lawyer for up to 60 minutes.
In order to suspend the President of the Republic for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the Political Constitution, approval by an absolute majority of the legal number of members of Congress is required, that is, more than 66 votes.
“The resolution that declares the suspension of the exercise of the presidency of the Republic, is published in the official gazette within 24 hours of receipt of the communication sent by Congress. Failing that, the president of Congress orders that it be published in one of the newspapers with the largest national circulation”, proposes the Constitution Commission.
The maximum term to temporarily dismiss the president will be 36 months, and an extension of the measure will not be possible “due to the same facts that motivated the resolution that suspends him from the exercise of the presidency, since this would imply violating the principle of ‘ne bis in idem'”.
