[ad_1]
The Plenary of the Constitutional Court issued a ruling on Tuesday regarding the request for the cessation of the Communist Party deputy Hugo Gutiérrez, rejecting by 7 votes to 1 the requirement of Chilean legislators Let’s go against the opposition parliamentarian.
The resolution was taken on the morning of September 4.
The request was rejected with the vote of the president of the TC, María Luisa Brahm, in addition to the ministers Gonzalo García, Juan José Romero, Nelson Pozo, María Pía Silva, Miguel Ángel Fernández and Rodrigo Pica, with various grounds explicit in the sentence preventions. The dissenting vote, to be accepted, was drawn up by Minister Cristián Letelier.
The presentation was formalized on January 6 and accepted by the court on the 21st of the same month.
Pro-government legislators presented the request invoking Article 60 of the Constitution that allows the removal of “the deputy or senator who, verbally or in writing, incites the alteration of public order”, Accusing that Gutiérrez uploaded to his social networks some drawings supposedly made by children in which President Sebastián Piñera appeared dead.
The agency analyzed a series of acts by the legislator, including a complaint for allegedly threatening an active duty member of the Carabineros de Chile, in the city of Iquique, during the second half of 2019. “The conduct of the required parliamentarian does not reach to configure the necessary standard to be capable of evaluating whether she had the capacity to incite the alteration of public order”, indicates in the judgment the TC regarding this fact.
The deputy’s participation in a demonstration in front of a military compound in October 2019, in the city of Iquique, was also denounced, which “It is not accredited in the evidence provided by the requesting party.”
“From the analysis of the images of the tweets included in the file, it is concluded that these did not generate, in the terms indicated in the request, alteration of public order as a result of an inciting act by the parliamentarian. As for a eventual violation of the rights of children, children and adolescents, the Court ruled that the Family Court is the competent one to adopt the measures that are pertinent in accordance with the law, ”says the TC.
The court also stated that “no conviction could be formed that, in particular, one or another action of the examined ones had caused the alteration of public order as a result of an act generated by the requested parliamentarian”.
