[ad_1]
A controversy was formed this Friday after the Minister of Defense, Carlos Holmes Trujillo, was successful in his summons in the Senate last Thursday, in a fact that the opponents described as another ‘little game’ of Uribism.
Trujillo was summoned to two debates in the Senate: one on political control and the other on a motion of censure, and on account of two proposals from the Democratic Center, a new victory was scored.
Regarding the debate on political control, the Uribistas presented a proposal for the plenary to say if it was satisfied with its answers and the vote was 66 senators for yes and 1 for no. The opponents did not participate in this vote.
And the motion of censure was overturned by another proposal presented by the Democratic Center, which argued the absence of legal grounds for its implementation.
(Read also: The harsh call of attention from Arturo Char to Gustavo Petro)
In this case, the appeal sought to question the official for not having requested endorsement from the Senate for the presence of the United States military mission in Colombia, but the Council of State, a few days ago, He said that this was not necessary, thereby defeating the hypothesis of illegality, on which the promoter of the motion, Jorge Enrique Robledo, insisted.
Despite the majority making the decision, the opponents reacted harshly.
One of the most emphatic was Senator Antonio Sanguino, from Alianza Verde, who told EL TIEMPO that the maneuver of the Democratic Center “It was not only a ‘little game’, but a nonsensical and arbitrary act”.
Senator for Polo Jorge Enrique Robledo, who requested the failed motion of censure from the Minister of Defense.
Jorge Enrique Robledo Press
Sanguino affirmed that having “obstructed” the debate on the motion of censure on Holmes Trujillo was “contrary to the Constitution” and the Regulations of Congress, and that with this “they trampled on the rights of the opposition.”
(Recommended: Opponents are already talking about another ‘little game’ after a session with the Ministry of Defense)
Senator Robledo, who had requested a censure appeal against the minister for his alleged breach of the law, was one of the most outraged and did not hesitate to voice his protest.
Robledo said that, in addition to violating the Constitution and the law, “what the duquism did” was “authoritarian” and that they did it because the head of the Defense portfolio “was afraid to face the country.”
The reasons
From the other shore, the Uribistas explained their reasons for having proposed the cancellation of the Robledo debate, which was accompanied by 58 senators from other political parties.
For Senator Ciro Ramírez, the issue of the advisory mission of the United States in the fight against drug trafficking in Colombia has already been the subject of two debates in the Senate and, in addition, “The Council of State sealed this discussion giving powers to the President of the Republic and saying that he did not have to consult the Senate” for this decision.
(You may be interested in: What did Gustavo Bolívar say about Uribe and Duque?)
Ramírez added that, given this ruling by the high court, Thursday’s debate “lacked purpose” and that “it made no sense to do so.”
Uribista senator Ernesto Macías agreed with his partner and said that the censorship appeal “was not appropriate.”
He added that the ruling of the Council of State “and the termination of the process of the contempt incident” that the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca had opened on President Iván Duque were “sufficient reasons” for not taking place.
From the legal point of view there were also divided opinions. Former attorney Jaime Bernal Cuéllar affirmed that “if the law was not violated with the United States mission in Colombia, this debate on the motion of censure was unnecessary” in the Senate.
(Recommended: Possibility of censure motion from Robledo to the Ministry of Defense)
“If the legal point was the presence of some soldiers who are in Colombia and that the Government allowed without authorization from the Senate, the decision of Thursday in the plenary session is valid, because the Council of State said that it was not a transit of troops and that it was not the endorsement of this corporation was necessary ”, affirmed the expert.
For the former Minister of the Interior and former President of Congress Juan Fernando Cristo, the fall of the motion of censure was “totally illegal” and the ruling of the Council of State should have been “An argument within the debate” and not a reason to knock it down. “What they did was violate the Constitution with a proposition,” Christ affirmed.
For several observers, beyond the legality of what happened in the Senate, what is evident is the political pulse that various sectors are giving that will be protagonists in the presidential elections of 2022.
Other policy news to read
– María Fernanda Cabal talks about Claudia López, social protest and 2022
– How was Lozada received in the Senate after confession about Álvaro Gómez?
– ‘You will never be president, thank God’: Paloma to Petro
POLITICS
