What happened to the protection that Ricardo Roa filed against the CNE?

He Superior Court of Bogotá denied the protection action presented by the president of Ecopetrol, Ricardo Roa. The procedure was presented after the National Electoral Council (CNE) opened an investigation against Gustavo Petro’s presidential campaign, in which he served as manager.

(Read more: Government is verifying the possible death of ‘Iván Márquez’ in Venezuela)

The CNE investigation responds to the alleged violation of electoral limits for an amount of $5,355 million pesos in the first and second round. After the opening of this process was announced, Roa presented a guardianship requesting the “file of the investigation for various legal reasons that were formulated in the document, among which are procedural errors that do not allow the process to continue.”

The rapporteur magistrate, Martha Isabel García Serrano, pointed out that this action “it is not the ideal means to achieve the archiving of the aforementioned investigation and/or to dispute the decisions of the administration within the process of an electoral process.”

García also mentioned that the current president of the state oil company must exhaust another requirement, which is to directly dispute the charges against him before the electoral authority. “The element of subsidiarity is not met, since the regular channel must first be exhausted; that is, go to the authority to expose the irregularities that are now alleged”he added.

(Read more: Petro Government was in favor of the reform of the General Participation System)

(See: Did CNE exaggerate in the case of indictment of the Petro campaign? This is what the magistrate said)

With this determination, he also highlighted that no damage was caused to fundamental rights de Roa with the announcement of the administrative investigation against him and against Petro, as a candidate.

“The existence of irremediable damage that could merit a ruling in the guardianship seat is distorted; furthermore, it is not possible to extract from the file elements of judgment from which the imminent, obvious and transcendent damage that would serve as a stirrup to grant guardianship is inferred. as a transitional mechanism, as permitted by Article 8 of Decree 2591 of 1991, in other words, the evidence of irremediable harm alleged by the promoter of the amparo is conspicuous by its absence.”he indicated.

(Read more: Bill to regulate air transport of pets advances in Congress)

PORTFOLIO
*With information from EL TIEMPO – JUSTICIA