[ad_1]
On December 7, Judge Rocío Araujo filed a document in which it was indicated that the definition of the continuity of Francisco Barbosa, as attorney general, remained in the hands of the Plenary Chamber of the Council of State without the matter having been accepted. However, today the high court corrected a mistake considered “appalling”.
Judge Roció Araujo Oñate, of the fifth section of the Council of State, surprised on December 7 by taking a decision that did not correspond to her, during the process that seeks the annulment of the election of Francisco Barbosa as attorney general. The gown uploaded to the public system of the institution an order in which it ordered that the file be in the hands of the Plenary Chamber of the high court, composed of 27 magistrates due to legal importance. However, that document was hardly a working draft and not something that had been studied in the Plena Room. Today, November 14, the Council of State corrected the error.
After a week, Judge Lucy Jeannette Bermúdez, who was responsible for the study of the prosecutor Barbosa’s case, took action on the matter and decided to download that draft document from the official system which, for unknown reasons, was notified to the parties in the process as if it were a firm decision. The truth is that only Judge Bermúdez, whose case was bypassed, is the one who must resolve Judge Araújo’s request for the case to be sent to the Plenary Chamber. Bermúdez will have to study the petition, prepare a response presentation and take it to the Plenary Chamber so that the decision can be made there.
In context: The blunder of the Council of State in the case of the prosecutor Barbosa.
As revealed The viewer, This case has left several questions in the air that today remain unsolved. For example, if Judge Araújo was not the rapporteur for the case, why did she herself respond to her request for the case to go to the Plenary Chamber? The magistrate Lucy Bermúdez herself showed her surprise about this episode in a car issued this Monday that ordered the withdrawal of the document: “Despite the appearance or appearance of the aforementioned electronic paper, it is noted that it is not a measure, not even a a project, but rather a working document of the authorship of the robed Rocío Araújo Oñate that was circulated with the intention of being “discussed” in the Chamber, which, for reasons unknown to the undersigned magistrate, was brought to the plenary ”.
Bermúdez insisted that this document does not produce any legal effect for various reasons: “mainly, because it is not a decision nor is it a presentation because it is not presented by the only one who can do it, which is the judge-rapporteur; During the week that elapsed, no session of the Plenary Administrative Court was held; the file in question is totally devoid of signatures ”.
Likewise, Judge Bermúdez indicated that this document “does not constitute a procedural piece that must act in plenary, as it is a working document, draft or project outside the judicial practice that governs the matter, or the instruction that corresponds to issue the subscribed magistrate in her role as rapporteur, and therefore its breakdown and return will be ordered immediately to magistrate Rocío Araújo Oñate ”.
During the main process, against the election of attorney general Francisco Barbosa, the same Plenary Chamber of the Council of State already denied a request made by the Attorney General’s Office for the Fifth Section of the high court to delegate the file to it. The Public Ministry considered that the matter should be studied in full by the 27 magistrates because, in their opinion, the prosecutor’s period is Institutional and not personal as it is currently understood.
In context: They demand the election of Francisco Barbosa as attorney general.
“For the rest, the need to establish or unify jurisprudence on the period of the Attorney General of the Nation is ruled out, as this was achieved with the judgment of April 16, 2013 (of the Council of State); Another thing would be the “possibility” that this Corporation has to rethink, change or modify the jurisprudence, an aspect that the Administrative Litigation Chamber has not evaluated informally and that has not been the subject of the corresponding referral by the Fifth Section in those precise terms, ”said the Plenary Chamber after what was raised by the Attorney General’s Office.
The election of prosecutor Barbosa, who took office on January 20, replacing Néstor Humberto Martínez, was sued in mid-2020 by two law students from the National University, Gina Paola Ávila Sierra and René Mateus Forero. According to individual plaintiffs, that the current attorney general has four years from his election – as established by the rules of “personal” appointment -, despite the fact that an interrupted administration took place, “is not in harmony with our legal and constitutional order ”.
