It’s not the first time, and I’m sure it won’t be the last time, that I have to criticize the sentences or opinions of this new Constitutional Court through this column. Although they no longer smell like beer or are flavored with green rice, lately they have been flavored with legal activism that in some cases, like gay marriage, has crossed all the boundaries that must be respected in the legal system. .legally established democracy. It was truly unfortunate that the Pyrrhic majority sought to reform the Constitution – allowing same-sex marriage – through an interpretation of the constitutional text, based on an advisory opinion said to be part of the “constitutional bloc” recognized by our Magna Carta. As I said at the time, it was a dangerous shortcut they took.

But it’s one thing that there are judgments or opinions burdened with activism that is often incomprehensible, another not so much, and another, and very different, politics through it. And that is that the Constitutional Court has now by a majority of votes (6 votes against 3) positively decided to allow the impeachment proceedings against the President of the Republic, but only for one of the three accusations brought against him. ., that is, about embezzlement, because in the opinion of that political majority, such an accusation would be minimally credible.

In a heated environment, requests for evidence continue to pour in as part of the political trial of President Guillermo Lasso

But the above is not the most unfortunate part of the opinion. In paragraph 64, the majority of judges admit that the decision on the reconsideration of the CAL of March 20, 2023 was not implemented in writing: “Now, if the fact of not signing the decision on the reconsideration constitutes a violation of the rules governing the procedure of the sessions of the CAL, the matter outside the jurisdiction of this magistrate.” Even Pontius Pilate did not get that far.

The defense of President Guillermo Lass has prepared a request to the Constitutional Court for the control and monitoring of the procedure applied by the National Assembly in the political trial

… it is one thing that there are failures… laden with activism… but another, and quite different, is conducting politics through toga.

In addition to the above, this opinion openly states that there were irregularities in the legislative procedure before the start of the trial (lapsus calami), however, for members of the majority, they were not so powerful as to affect the legality and legitimacy of the political, since “violation of procedural rules does not include always a violation of due process” nor is every “violation of any procedural rule covered by constitutional relevance.” It seems incredible that something as obvious as the fact of violation of the procedure from Art. 88 of the Organic Law on the Legislative Function, passed unnoticed (paragraph 69, preserved voice of Judge Carmen Corral).

In short, apart from the disastrous precedent set by this majority (forms simply and simply do not matter), I have to agree with what Judge Enrique Herrería said, in his preserved voice: a role in constitutional engineering, above their political role, in order to protect constitutional norms and the will of constitutional defenders in a certain historical context. (OR)