[ad_1]
The names of justices Julia Emma Garzón de Gómez and Pedro Alonso Sanabria Buitrago, from the Disciplinary Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, are well known among the courts.
This week, Garzón’s sounded for a controversial decision with his presentation in which he ordered the Supreme Court of Justice remove the magistrate who has the case of former Antioquia Governor Luis Alfredo Ramos.
And that of both magistrates sounded again this Thursday, with a statement in which they announced that they had made their positions available to Congress. Why are these two robes so controversial?
(Also read: ‘Eternal’ magistrates of the Judiciary make their positions available)
1. They ‘eternalized’ in their positions
The Constitution establishes that the term of the magistrates is 8 years. However, Garzón and Sanabria have already been 12, that is, they have stayed in their positions 4 years longer than legally established.
The reason, as they have argued, is that until new property magistrates are elected to replace them, they can remain there.
And it is that in 2015, the Reform of Balance of Powers eliminated the Disciplinary Chamber, of which they are part, and ordered the creation of the National Judicial Discipline Commission in its replacement, but this has not happened.
(It may interest you: Judicial Discipline Commission should be formed this year)
2. They are part of a room that was eliminated 5 years ago
The Disciplinary Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judiciary ceased to exist in law 5 years ago, but in practice it has continued to function on an interim basis since then.
Although it had to be replaced by the Judicial Discipline Commission since 2016, this has not been possible because in 2017 and 2018 the Council of State annulled the public calls that the Superior Council of the Judiciary – previously called the Administrative Chamber – and the Presidency to elect the new magistrates of that Commission.
The new body must be conformed por 7 robes elected by Congress from 4 shortlists sent by the Judiciary, and 3 by the President of the Republic. These shortlists must be conformed by public announcement, but at the time the Council of State said that this announcement should be regulated by a statutory law, which was never done.
But the solution came a month ago when the Constitutional Court, when reviewing a protection of the Judiciary against the ruling with which the Council of State annulled its call, said that a statutory law is not necessary, and that this year, before the 20th December, the Commission should be ready.
He also said that a magistrate term that exceeds 8 years is unconstitutional and that this period it cannot drag on making interpretations that it can go until replacement magistrates are elected.
(We recommend: Magistrates who have been in the Judiciary for 12 years should leave their positions)
3. Lack of transparency in the Chamber
The two magistrates have not only received criticism for having screwed themselves to their posts, but because there is little transparency in the Chamber about their actions.
Sanabria and Garzón are the only proprietary magistrates that the Disciplinary Chamber currently has, but in addition to them there are 5 provisional magistrates. These have not been elected by Congress, as required by law, but by the same chamber with procedures that are unknown.
In fact, in September 2019, through a right to petition, EL TIEMPO requested information on how and when the appointment of the other 5 magistrates was made, information that was denied with the following argument: “This information is part of the sheet of life of each magistrate, as they were elected by a full chamber, as stated in the respective minutes, this information is subject to reservation “.
This newspaper also consulted about the date of entry and end of the term of each of the magistrates of the Chamber, information that was denied by the same arguing that said data is part of the resumes of the magistrates and that, therefore, they were reserved. This, despite the fact that the entry and exit dates of gowns are public and it is information that the other high courts display on their web pages.
In fact, of the 9 questions that this newspaper asked at that time, only two were answered moderately, for all the others the answer varied between “it is reserved” and “it is wasteful / it does not correspond to us”.
Other Justice notes that may interest you:
-Former prosecutor of the JEP will ask for his release due to expiration of terms
-Procurator’s Office speaks of ‘excessive force’ in the Ordóñez case
-The Prosecutor’s Office will summon Piedad Córdoba for the case of Gómez Hurtado
JUSTICE
On twitter: @JusticiaET
justice @ eltiempo.
[ad_2]
