[ad_1]
The Supreme Court of Justice has just made a harsh ruling against the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary, specifically against Judges Pedro Sanabria and Julia Emma Garzón, who add more than 12 years in that position despite the fact that their constitutional term is 8 years.
In its decision, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court says that Garzón and Sanabria are “former magistrates” who for four years could not make decisions, and also certify copies to the Attorney General’s Office to investigate them, if it considers it so, for possible criminal responsibilities for having continued to decide as judges.
(Read also: 5 magistrates from controversial Judiciary Chamber want to repeat).
The high court referred to an “apparent guardianship sentence” decided on September 8 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary, with a presentation by the so-called eternal magistrate, Pedro Sanabria.
The corporation refers to a guardianship judgment in which the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary decided to return to two people some goods that they claimed as their own, but that had been delivered by ‘the Twin’ to repair the victims. Although the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had opposed lifting the precautionary measures and returning those assets, Sanabria resolved a guardianship that revoked that ruling and ordered to hand them over to the individuals who requested them. Thus, Sanabria gave the Court 48 hours to cancel the precautionary measures.
(Read also: Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary orders to return property of the ‘Twin’).
The ruling of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary It was decided with the votes of Pedro Sanabria, Julia Emma Garzón, Alejandro Meza Cardales and Fidalgo Estupiñán. They saved their vote (that is, they left the majority decision) Magda Victoria Acosta, Camilo Montoya Reyes and Carlos Mario Cano Diosa did not participate.
When doing the accounts, the Supreme Court of Justice –in a unanimous decision of the Criminal Chamber- indicates that this ruling was not approved with the minimum decision quorum legally required and, therefore, “Does not exist legally”.
(Read also: Eamid controversy, tokens are moved to the end of the Disciplinary Chamber).
The reason is that, for the Court, although Sanabria and Garzón sign the ruling and vote in favor of returning the goods, considers that both of them are “ex-magistrates” that they could not make decisions, therefore, the ruling was only signed with two votes despite the required quorum being four.
“These are two individuals who do not, to date, exercise the position of magistrates of the Jurisdictional Disciplinary Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, whose participation in the deliberation and voting of the paper does not concur, nor can it attend, to the conformation of the deliberative and decision-making quorum of that judicial cell, ”says the Criminal Chamber.
These are two individuals who do not exercise, to date, the position of magistrates of the Jurisdictional Disciplinary Chamber of the Superior Council of the
Judiciary
In its decision, the Court indicates that according to the laws, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judiciary – which should cease to exist since 2016, but has not been eliminated because the body to replace it, the National Judicial Discipline Commission, has not yet been created – it should be made up of seven elected magistrates “For a period of eight years, by the National Congress.”
And that is the reason why the Criminal Chamber says that Sanabria and Garzón are former magistrates, since they have already exceeded their eight-year term. According to the Court, the expiration and completion of the magistrate’s term supposes “The automatic and full-fledged dismissal of the position and, by obvious consequence, the impossibility of continuing to exercise its functions ”. For that exit from the position, the corporation points out, no administrative act is needed to be issued.
The high court ensures that, according to the Civil Service and Consultation Chamber of the Council of State, public servants “cannot continue to exercise their functions after the respective period has expired.”
He also cites the recent ruling of the Constitutional Court, which annulled a decision of the Council of State that had prevented the creation of the new National Commission for Judicial Discipline. In that decision, the Court said that the Council of State had caused an unconstitutional blockade that had led to “openly unconstitutional results”, such as the fact that magistrates of the Disciplinary Chamber continued in their positions for periods of more than eight years, despite the fact that this period is non-extendable and cannot be postponed.
(Read: Court abides by the Disciplinary Chamber but questions its legitimacy).
That period, the Constitutional Court said, cannot be extended “due to the absence of vacancies or the absence of appointment of the respective officials or for personal or institutional reasons.” Thus, says the Supreme Court, citing the Constitutional Court, “Any extension of the term of the magistrates of the high courts is unconstitutional.”
With this background, the Criminal Chamber says that “former magistrates Sanabria Buitrago and Garzón de Gómez” have already finished their terms a while ago, Well, his 8 years ended on September 9 and August 21, 2016, that is, more than four years ago.
Thus, the Court affirms, for this corporation it is clear that they no longer “hold the status of magistrates” for which the order they sent on October 14 on the assets of the ‘Twin’ “is not a judicial sentence but a eraser”.
And as the ruling was made with a presentation by Sanabria, the Criminal Chamber said that it cannot even be considered a draft ruling because these decisions can only be made “by a magistrate in office.”
With all these reasons, for the Court the decision taken by the Disciplinary Chamber does not constitute a judicial order and, therefore, its orders are not binding and will not be followed by the Criminal Chamber.
The second crash?
It is not the first time that the Supreme Court of Justice and the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary collide over decisions of the latter.
On September 2, in a decision taken by the Plenary Chamber, the Supreme Court of Justice complied with an order given by the Disciplinary Chamber, which told it that it should remove the magistrate Ariel Agusto Torres from the process he was leading against former Antioquia Governor Luis Alfredo Ramos, for ‘parapolitics’.
(Also read: The moves in the case of Luis Alfredo Ramos and his new magistrate).
At that time, the Supreme Court said that it abided by the ruling, however, it questioned the legitimacy of the Disciplinary Chamber to continue making these decisions, as it said that its interim situation undermined its credibility and “notably delegitimizes its powers.” He also pointed out that this Chamber had already lost its jurisdiction to hear tutelage against the Supreme Court.
In addition, he questioned that the Disciplinary Chamber separated Judge Torres for the alleged leak of a presentation in the case of Ramos, because he said that this decision was made without motivation or valid reasons.
JUSTICE
Twitter: @JusticiaET
