Santo Domingo.- The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) rejected early this Thursday the challenge claim against the Extraordinary National Convention of the Modern Revolutionary Party (PRM) held on January 30.
Said lawsuit, filed by the lawyer Fidel Alberto Tavárez and in which the politician Guido Gómez Mazara appears as a voluntary intervener, was described by the judges as inadmissible, ill-founded and lacking legal basis.
“As for the merits, both the action in challenge of reference, as well as the voluntary intervention, as inadmissible, ill-founded and lacking legal basis, since the Extraordinary Assembly of the Modern Revolutionary Party (PRM) of January 30 of the year two thousand twenty-two (2022), was carried out in accordance with the constitutional, legal and statutory regulations that govern it; as well as the modification of the statutes of the Modern Revolutionary Party (PRM) that was produced”, specified the TSE in the seventh paragraph of the sentence.
At this point, the decision was adopted with the dissenting opinion of Judge Rosa Pérez de García, whose legal reasoning will be included in the full sentence.
Likewise, the TSE judges denied the order of inadmissibility raised by the contested party regarding the non-exhaustion of an internal procedure in the PRM, since the case does not apply article 30.4 of Law no. 33-18 of Political Parties, Groups and Movements, nor the statutes of the aforementioned political organization contemplate this requirement as a previous step for the exercise of an action of this nature.
They also rejected the order of inadmissibility raised by the contested party on an alleged non-deposit of the document whose challenge is pursued, since, on the one hand, there is a copy of the resolutions approved in the Extraordinary Assembly of the PRM on January 30 in the file. of this year, presented by the challenging party, in addition to the fact that the main object of the challenge is not the document that includes the conclusions of the Extraordinary Assembly, but the holding of said Assembly itself and, specifically, the statutory modification produced.
Regarding said assembly, the magistrates rejected the objection of unconstitutionality by diffuse means, relative to the resolutions adopted, after considering “obvious” that the purpose of the request is the annulment of the decisions approved during the Convention, “for what they are issues that should and will be elucidated on the merits of this lawsuit.”
Another rejection was the exception of unconstitutionality by diffuse means related to article 101 of the founding statutes of the party, because it is not considered as a means of defense that should be known as a matter prior to the rest of the case, since, in the first place, it refers to statutes that are not in force because they have been reformed (this reform being precisely what the challenger is attacking) and, second, because what was requested is not related to what the court must decide in the case .
You can read: TSE will hear this Wednesday lawsuit against PRM statutes
According to the fifth point, the exclusion of the plaintiff’s offer of evidence was also denied, the certification issued by the Central Electoral Board (JCE) on March 29, 2022, because in the instruction of the process it was evidenced that the content of said certification constitutes information not in dispute between the parties.
Meanwhile, the main action was declared good and valid with respect to the form of both the main action challenging the Extraordinary Assembly, as well as the demand in voluntary intervention, for both having been initiated in accordance with the law.
The decision was adopted by judges Ygnacio Pascual Camacho Hidalgo, president; Juan Alfredo Biaggi Lama, Fernando Fernández, Pedro P. Yermenos Forastieri and the dissenting opinion of Judge Rosa Pérez de García, in the seventh point of the sentence.
