[ad_1]
After that for 58 votes to one in the Senate plenary resolved last Thursday declare itself satisfied with the answers of the Minister of Defense, Carlos Holmes Trujillo, and not for this reason to advance the debate on the motion of censure requested by Senator Jorge Robledo, from Polo, the lawyer Miguel Ángel Del Río Malo announced a complaint for prevarication against the parliamentarians who endorsed such decision.
“I will denounce the 58 senators who have just committed a prevaricate in public view. This is unacceptable. It is the most despicable act against the Constitution and the law in our republican life ”, anticipated the jurist last Thursday through his Twitter account.
This after Senator Gustavo Petro, from Colombia Humana, who was part of the opponents who they left the virtual venue during the vote, would have invited in their networks “all the Democratic lawyers who want to organize the complaint for prevarication before the Supreme Court of Justice against the 58 senators who voted against the Constitution and sabotaged the right to the motion of censure of Senator Robledo and others ”.
However, for Senator Ernesto Macías, from the Democratic Center, the “motion of censure against Carlos Holmes Trujillo in the case of the US military. in Colombia it was not appropriate: three debates in the Senate on the same issue, a ruling by the Council of State and the termination of the contempt incident by the Cundinamarca Court are sufficient reasons ”.
In turn, his partner, Paola Holguín warned: “No more marulla. Law 5 of 1992 (regulation of Congress) is clear: Plenary votes whether or not it is satisfied with the minister’s explanations ”.
What happened last Thursday in the Senate plenary session is that after the political control debate against Trujillo cited by Roy Barreras, a dissident from La U, several senators presented a proposal to declare the corporation’s satisfaction with the minister’s responses and incidentally not to advance the debate on the motion of censure that followed against the same official by Robledo.
Was it legal or not?
Constitutional lawyer Eduardo Palencia told this newspaper: “I believe that Article 135 of the Constitution is being violated which indicates that the motion of censure must be proposed by the tenth part of the members that make up the respective chamber ”.
The professor at the Simón Bolívar University adds that “what Macías alleges is that the Council of State has already made a decision on the subject under debate and there is no room for this motion; However, that decision does not indicate that US troops should or should not be in Colombia., but what it raises is that there was a procedure not carried out by the guardians, for those reasons I consider that this decision of the Council of State in no way disables a debate of motion of censure and I think this had to be carried out as stated in the Political Constitution”.
[ad_2]
