The President of the Republic was politically impeached. All reasons for such a trial are configured “for” specific crimes. Evidence of a crime is often complex. The Constitutional Court made the trial sustainable, and the National Assembly made a special effort to prosecute it by chance. The President decided to dissolve the Assembly. He did it at an inconvenient time: before the vote on the process. He referred to a legitimate constitutional basis. The argumentation of the decree confused everything.

It seems to me that the decree lacked the argumentation to convince itself that “serious political crisis and internal turmoil” went beyond what the Court defined. In any case, I understand the psychological situation of the government and its boredom.

The problem reached the Constitutional Court. This buried any possibility of declaring it unconstitutional. The reason for this, in my opinion, was very simple: all lawsuits pointed to the unconstitutionality of the Regulation based on its conflict of norms or provisions with the Constitution. The purpose of this type of constitutional action, legally, is to identify and remove “regulatory incompatibilities due to content or form, between constitutional norms and other provisions that make up the legal system.” A very serious mistake by the prosecutors: who told them that eliminating the National Assembly and informing it and the National Electoral Council is the norm? That decree of “death on the cross” regulates absolutely nothing. He does not rule any situation. He didn’t have to. Since when is notice of decision unconstitutional? The president simply decides to use the constitutional option. And this is where the problem arises: the Constitutional Court has just defined that this death on the cross cannot be disputed before anyone.

The court says, basically, that crucifixion “immediately gives way to civil control over their representatives” (because the people must choose their new representatives) and that there is no mechanism for judicially challenging said crucifixion. This means that no one can claim the said death on the cross. That is, it is not subject to legal control. But the Constitution says that rights are fully justified and that we have the right to make individual and collective petitions “and receive attention or motivated responses.”

You always have to see things in perspective. And the prospects are very bad: from now on, any president can arbitrarily dissolve the Assembly, without a valid explanation, and no one can challenge such an act. For the peace of the Republic, for the economy, for investments, the decision is appropriate, but the reason is wrong. The requests should have been dismissed as childish: consider the dissolution of the National Assembly to be a normative act and that the dissolution and “notifications” must be declared unconstitutional. The court made a mistake in explaining its refusal. For me, such a mistake does not affect their proven ethics, their joint effort and their credibility. (OR)