[ad_1]
Opposition and even government parliamentarians recalled that the Constitutional Court advocated face-to-face sessions of Congress over virtuality, even more so when it comes to matters that modify the constitution. Despite the discontent, the majorities prevailed and the initiatives were processed.
The discussion of various draft legislative act this wednesday in the Senate –That is, those that involve modifying the Constitution–, raised a rash among some opposition parliamentarians. Insisting on what was said by the Constitutional court, that through a ruling determined that the virtuality in the pandemic should be the last resort to session (even more if it is about touching the Magna Carta), many asked that initiatives of this caliber not be voted on from a computer and they chose to leave the session.
In context: Virtual Congress in pandemic should be the last resort: Constitutional Court
Among others, this Wednesday on the agenda of discussion of the plenary of the Senate is the project that they grant to Villavicencio (Goal) the special category of biodiverse, tourist, cultural, agro-industrial and educational district, as well as another that grants the municipality of Colombian Port (Atlantic) the category of tourist, cultural and historical district.
The defenders of meeting virtually, including draft legislation, recalled that the law is still in force. emergency that broke out in the House of Representatives for a COVID-19 outbreak that forced the isolation of 169 parliamentarians. Appealing to a concept of the Bogotá Health Secretariat, they assured that it is advisable to carry out the activities preferably in a virtual until the control of the outbreak is guaranteed and only the personnel required to ensure the operation and transmission of sessions.
You may also be interested in: Camera will meet again blended the other week
One of the first to speak out to voice his protest against the intention to modify the Constitution in a virtual way was Gustavo Petro (Colombia Humana), who asked the congressmen to examine the convenience of this type of procedure. “It is a serious matter. At this time, when the law that we discussed so much to regulate virtual, blended and virtual sessions collapsed, there is nothing else to embrace a virtuality that is not the judgment of the Court ”.
Petro insisted that the ruling indicated that presence is a right of any parliamentarian who wants to exercise it and that it is through this modality that legal and constitutional matters must be discussed. “How is it that we are going to vote exclusively on a reform to the Constitution?”, he questioned.
His partner, Gustavo Bolívar, joined the call and described it as “rude” to remotely reform the Constitution. “This Constitution cost this country blood. Four presidential candidates assassinated. Three ministers of Justice shot. 250 car bombs put Pablo Escobar before this Constitution. So that we come to change it today. Many of us even go out in shorts, next to a pool or a kiosk, to reform a Constitution that it cost many people blood ”.
Bolívar also claimed that the senators are accruing representation expenses “That we are stealing the congressmen, because they were instituted to go to Bogotá, pay for the residency and meet in person. We have been from the houses for 10 months and accruing those expenses ”.
Read also: Plenary of the Chamber sank project that regulated virtual sessions
Even from the U – declared government party – Senator Roosvelt Rodríguez stated that the Congress is not authorized under any circumstances to approve this type of initiative and it is necessary to move towards presence. “You cannot approve constitutional reforms, statutory or organic laws, or advance political control debates in virtual sessions.”
In turn, Senator Guillermo García-Realpe (Liberal Party) highlighted the handling that the president of the Senator, Arturo Char (Radical Change), has given to the sessions, but criticized the appeal to virtuality to touch the Constitution. “These projects can wait a week and call a face-to-face session. The Court has stated that constitutional reforms cannot be debated through this remote system. Let’s avoid this complicating the projects, but rather the entire order of the day ”.
Senator Alexánder López, from the Polo Democrático, went further and filed a proposal to prevent the constitutional reform projects that were on the agenda from being discussed and voted on in the virtual session. “Just as Colombians, the vast majority if not all, are outside their homes, developing their work, business and other activities, whoIt is very bad that we continue to set a bad example ”.
In context: House on alert for COVID: 169 representatives enter mandatory isolation
However, after putting the proposal to a vote, the idea of not meeting virtually to modify the Constitution sank with 53 votes to 25.
[ad_2]
