“Then Pilate, seeing that nothing was progressing, but that a tumult was rising, took water and washed his hands in front of the people (…). ‘You will see’“. (Matthew 27:24, New Testament).

Should the Constitutional Court wash its hands of the admissibility of the impeachment trial against Guillermo Lasso, limiting itself to a “checklist” – just a list of formal requests for presentation – as the opponents of the president have demanded? I do not believe that the current Court, with members who have demonstrated ethics and legal knowledge, will fall into that error.

Here, in the contradictions of the functions of state power, there are actors in which mistakes multiply more than successes, no one is assimilated to Jesus, nor should it be Pilate. I don’t think there are powerful high priests like Caiaphas, even if some claim to be popes. But, yes, there could be pressures surrounding the Court, hoping that fear will overcome it.

Impeachment of Guillermo Lasso: The Constitutional Court is looking for a resolution that the National Assembly says it does not have in its records

Mediocrity

Revocation of art. 129 of the Constitution to dismiss the President of the Republic and/or the Vice President, this article, which is referred to in the corrected text for impeachment, can only “1.- For criminal offenses against the security of the state; 2.- For criminal acts of extortion, bribery, embezzlement or illegal enrichment; and, 3.- For crimes of genocide, torture, forced disappearance of persons, kidnapping or murder for political reasons or conscience“. Only for certain crimes.

The regulation should contain only auxiliary regulations for the effective application of constitutional and legal powers.

It is essential that the admissibility decision mentions evidence – not necessarily a previous criminal trial – along with a “checklist” of formal requirements.

There are indications of cause-and-effect relationships that need to be highlighted; for example, “because of this behavior (…) an injury could have occurred (…)”, and this is how they stand out, injury by injury, in the decision on admissibility.

It said that the December 21, 2017 opinion on the admissibility of the political trial of Jorge Glas only “list”and that the opinion against Lasso must be some kind of “copy paper” opinions against Glas, only changing names, dates and other peculiarities. Falsehood after falsehood. In the opinion against Glas, causal links are stated for each criminal offense charged against him. And although a previous criminal trial was not necessary, in his case he was already deprived of his liberty and prosecuted, and the most difficult case, which is mentioned several times in the opinion, is that of Odebrecht.

With the objectivity I always strive to express my opinion, I must mention the recent reform of the regulations of the Office of the Comptroller, by executive order, to which the control entity opposes. Its validity must be suspended until it is proven that it does not limit or condition the entity’s powers established by constitutional norms and law. Regulation cannot possibly do that, which is a greater condemnation if it is about control powers.

The regulation should contain only auxiliary regulations for the effective application of constitutional and legal powers. Evidence of whether such competences are limited or conditioned in the specific case. (OR)