Ricardo Martinelli had challenged the magistrate of the Electoral Court (TE), Eduardo Valdés Escoffery, not to act in the process of lifting his electoral criminal jurisdiction. However, the magistrate himself confirmed yesterday that the challenge was rejected by his colleagues last week, so now they are preparing to write the substantive ruling.
The lifting of jurisdiction had been requested by a judge who handles the cases of Odebrecht and New Business.
The magistrates attend an appeal from Martinelli, because on February 24 the electoral administrative judge, Edmara Jaén, decided to lift his legal prerogative.
The decision on the challenge was known yesterday, in the afternoon. It was resolved by magistrates Heriberto Araúz and Alfredo Juncá, who argued that there is no legal basis for their colleague Valdés to be declared disabled.
Roniel Ortiz, Martinelli’s lawyer, said that Valdés had been challenged because he had spoken publicly several times “against Martinelli.” He clarified that the background has not yet been defined.
Asked about it, Judge Valdés confirmed the decision and explained that it was made last week.
With the challenge resolved, the TE magistrates would have a clear picture to analyze the lifting of Martinelli’s criminal jurisdiction.
The origin of the lifting of Martinelli’s jurisdiction comes from a request made by Judge Baloisa Marquínez, of the Third Criminal Court, who is in charge of the New Business and Odebrecht cases, in which the former president is accused.
Judge Marquínez requires the lifting of jurisdiction to hold preliminary hearings in both processes.
According to the latest reform to the Electoral Code (Law 247 of October 22, 2021), the magistrates must resolve this appeal “within no more than eight business days.” This is contained in 106 of that Law 247 that reformed article 267 of the Electoral Code.
Martinelli filed his appeal on February 25 through the lawyer Niurka Palacios.
Valdés said that by resolving the challenge last week, now they are working on the final ruling on the jurisdiction.
