The Council of the Magistracy seeks to get out of the eight-month paralysis without relevant decisions while it awaits the swearing in of three of the four representatives of the Senate that the Supreme Court authorized.
July 16 of last year was the last time that the Council managed to approve, in plenary, shortlists of judges to elevate to the Executive Powerin three competitions for Civil, Family and Minors justice.
The framework of agreements at that time between the ruling party and the opposition was not enough to propose definitions on the vacant federal courts and chambers in Comodoro Py and other parts of the country.
Since then, except for administrative and technological infrastructure issues, the Council has not functioned for its main task: to elect judges to be selected by the Executive Branch and endorsed by the Senate.
The Council has more than a thousand contests completed and in a position to be voted on by the plenary, if it were fully integrated, and not with 16 as now, and if the political environment allowed pacts between the ruling party and the opposition.
Agreed 2 of the highest court last Thursday, denying the oath in the Council to the senator of the ruling party Martín Doñate, introduced a new element in the conflict of powers that holds the body hostage.
In principle, the Court has to define a date for the swearing in of the three senators and wait for the legislators to swear in, when they might not do so.
“The only illegal thing here is what the Court does, breaking all the rules of democracy. Once again, it resorts to an instrument of the Superintendency such as this shameful Agreement, to nullify an administrative act of the Senate. More evidence of poor performance,” The deputy counselor Rodolfo Tailhade expressed the decision barely known.
In the Council, both the representatives of the lawyers and the judges want to return to work in the hope that the body will acquire centrality in the political discussion.
The Council’s sources speak of “urgency” to function, demonstrated in the internal circulation of “commission drafts”, mainly at the request of the bloc of judges.
The plenary needs 13 members for a quorum and two thirds of the councilors present to approve the short lists, elusive majorities since Horacio Rosatti presided over that last meeting in July of last year.
The plenary needs 13 members for a quorum and two thirds of the councilors present to approve the shortlists, elusive majorities since Horacio Rosatti presided over that last meeting in July of last year
But the conflict originates in December 2021, when the same Court ruled on the Council and declared its integration of 13 members “unconstitutional”.
For the Court there was no “balance” in a body made up of three judges, two lawyers, four legislators from the majority, two from the minority, an academic and a representative of the Executive.
And he ordered the sanction of a new law or return, within a period of 120 days, to the integration of 20 with the president of the Court; four judges; eight legislators (four from each chamber, two from the ruling party, one from the first minority and one from the second minority); four lawyers; two from the academic sector and one from the Executive Power.
The next level in the confrontation of powers would come when the ruling bloc decided to create “Citizen Unity” and thus claim the place of the second minority, which the Court annulled arguing that it was a “ruse” and that the seat corresponded to the senator of the Front PRO Luis Judge.
At the insistence of the Senate by Martín Doñate, the Court decided to invoke its power over the swearing in of the directors and not to take the oath but to María Inés Pilatti Vergara (FdT), Mariano Recalde (FdT) and Eduardo Alejandro Vischi (UCR), on date to be confirmed.
