August 23, 2024, 9:09 PM
August 23, 2024, 9:09 PM
“Please report in detail and with supporting documentation the date and time of receipt at the Plurinational Constitutional Court (TCP) of File 60237-2023-121 AAC,” says the first point of the Written Request for Information (PIE), directed by MAS deputy Estefanía Morales to this body.
Secondly, it requests an explanation of the current status of the review of Resolution 189/2023, of November 8, 2023, which resolves the Constitutional Protection Action and grants the protection requested by Mr. Rodrigo Fernando Melgar Rivero, representing Nelson Miguel Crapuzzi Zeballos, which provides for the annulment of the legal effect of Municipal Autonomous Law No. 417/2016, of December 1, 2016, and all acts arising from it.
It also requests information on the officials involved, specifying the date, time and method of drawing the file. In addition, it requests information on the constitutional chamber and the judges in charge of Resolution 189/2023.
According to Article 137 of the Chamber of Deputies, responses to the PIE must be submitted to the Chamber within a maximum of ten working days from their receipt. “Otherwise, the petitioner may request the plenary session, under summons, to deliver the aforementioned report within 48 hours; this request will be voted on without debate.”
Through a letter dated July 23 (TCP/PRES/MMB 121/2024), signed by Marlene Montero Barrientos, coordinator of the TCP’s Office of the Presidency, they responded to the Chamber of Deputies that the power to request reports does not extend to the TCP.
“Constitutional justice is not subject to any other organ of the Public Power,” and that “constitutional justice is due to the CPE and the laws, and that the matters that are within its jurisdiction will be resolved without interference.
Finally, the TCP’s response stressed that the Regulations of the Chamber of Deputies do not contemplate the TCP.
On behalf of the union members of Mutualista, in litigation between the Mayor of Santa Cruz de la Sierra and Miguel Crapuzzi, they regretted that June 26 was already contemplated as the date for a ruling in the Mutualista case, but that “strangely” it came to nothing.
