Judge Manuel Ortiz Read was not ratified as a magistrate of the Supreme Court of Justice and the main allegation that weighed against him was his agetaken into consideration by six of the eight members of the National Council of the Judiciary.
Here one verbatim transcription of what was proposed by the National Council of the Judiciary regarding the Judge Read Ortiz:
Within the framework of the deliberations, the National Council of the Judiciary knew and pondered the ratings related to the performance of the magistrate Manuel Alexis Read Ortizmember of the Supreme Court of Justice.
What are the evaluations of the magistrate’s performance? Manuel Alexis Read Ortiz?
The CNM has also evaluated the performance reports deposited by the magistrate Manuel Alexis Read Ortizdeposited on January 29, 2021, January 27, 2022, January 31, 2023, January 30, 2024 and July 24, 2025, which are published on the website of the National Council of the Judiciary. Likewise, the interview that was carried out on October 2, 2025 was evaluated.
From the exchange emerged two positionsexpression of plural analysis and reflective that characterizes the decisions of this constitutional body.
First position
“In the course of this discussion, some elements were also highlighted that several members of the CNM understood as being weighted in a sense less favorable to the magistrate’s case. Manuel Alexis Read Ortiz The proximity of his age to the mandatory retirement age for the judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, in accordance with the provisions of article 151, paragraph 2) of the Constitution of the Republic.
What arguments support the positions for and against its confirmation?
This fact, although it does not expressly constitute one of the assumptions that the regulation raises, is a serious element to take into account based on the normative assumptions of the Constitution and the law, since, if benefited by the confirmationwould perform less than 30% of the time provided for by article 181 of the Constitution for the position.
Second position
Some counselors highlighted that the work of the magistrate Manuel Alexis Read Ortiz It is distinguished by its contributions of indisputable institutional and legal significance. Under his presidency, the Third Room resolved a historical accumulation of more than five thousand (5,000) files, some pending since the year 1984ensuring that said Room does not currently register cases without decision that exceed one year.
This result was considered a relevant milestone, as it restored the credibility of the judicial system and became a benchmark for other jurisdictions. It was also highlighted that under his direction it was possible to update the contentious tax matters during the period 2024-2025meeting the goals set and contributing to the legal stability in a strategic area for public finances and economic security.
Likewise, its solid intellectual trajectory and academic, reflected in legal works of mandatory reference and in its contribution to the consolidation of jurisprudential criteria of high public interest, which have reinforced the legal certaintypredictability and trust of the productive and litigating sectors.
The councilors who assumed this position also highlighted their integrity, independence and ethical commitment, as well as the absence of any questioning that calls into question its impartiality in the face of external interests. By virtue of the above, they considered that the magistrate Manuel Alexis Read Ortiz must be confirmed as judge of the Supreme Court of Justice.
The Institutionality and Justice Foundation (Finjus) and the Network of Observers for Institutionality (ROI) questioned “the form” and the criteria used by the CNM to evaluate the three judges not ratified in the SCJ, among them the proximity of the mandatory retirement age of Judge Read Ortiz.
They weaken the function of an objective and coherent evaluation that must be based on the principles of merit, impartiality and judicial independence that must govern performance in high jurisdictional functions,” Finjus emphasizes.
The other judges who did not pass the evaluation to continue another period in the SCJ were Pilar Jiménez Ortiz and Moisés Ferrer Landrón, all evaluated at the beginning of October.
