Judicialization of election processes

I said, publicly, that we are living or writing, for our political history, unpublished chapters that we have never thought about. In this series of ideas, the last few hours in our environment are being talked about judicialization of electoral processes in Latin America and since in countries like Guatemala, Venezuela, the United States, without neglecting the precedents in Colombia and other nations, the decision is left in the hands of the courts or tribunals, which, in any case, answer to the sovereign, i.e. the people, the population with the capacity to give its vote and choose their rulers, whether these same courts make a definition, whether they say who can be a candidate or not, or whether they define whether this or that candidate won the presidency or not. one nation..

As he maintained well good reference for what we maintain, DOLORES GANDULFO: “In recent years, in Latin America, the progress of the judiciary is visible with an active role in the political sphere and in the life of political parties.

Electoral processes are no exception. A good number of choices “they went through court proceedings on election rules driven by clearly political reasons, which condition their normal development and weaken institutional transparency, thereby – and even more seriously – depriving citizens of true political representation.”

(GANDULFO, Dolores, Virtual Legal Library of the Institute for Legal Research of UNAM, 2022, p. 485 et seq.).

And GANDULFO continues by saying: “A study by the Latin American Strategic Center for Geopolitics (CELAG) defines the law as “…inappropriate use of legal instruments for the purpose of political persecution, destruction of public image and disqualification of a political opponent” and highlights three dynamics for its application: political timing, reorganization of the judicial system and double standards of the Law (refers to the decision on close monitoring some cases of corruption compared to others). Likewise, mass and concentrated media are generally said to be key actors in legal cases” (Emphasis added).

There is no doubt that this reality, that of court tournaments or electoral elections, andn Panama is already a reality and was introduced by one or other of the following mechanisms:

1. Through sentences that strike a chord on the electoral process and consequentlyeverything revolves around court decisions that directly affect the electoral process.

2. Sentences that contradict the Constitution and affect the electoral process. An example of this, it is argued, was the reform of the constitution in Honduras through the judgment, which was highly commented and analyzed, and the vast majority of opinions about it were negative.

3. Promotion court processes that want to prevent candidacy. This is where all the so-called “court processes” that prevent candidacies fit in.

Although processes of electoral judicialization are not new, as GANDULFO also warns of the same way of thinking, in recent years they seem to have gained new momentum in Latin America, using or using judicial reasons, initiating or opening criminal proceedings, basically, as evident and articulated tools of political persecution, destroying, in an insidious way, the principle of the state of innocence.

An example of this category, perhaps the most cited, and now, adding to this the recent case in Panama of former President RICARDO MARTINELLI BERROCAL, This is the case of former Brazilian president Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva (2003-2011). In 2018, according to polls, the former union leader emerged as the favorite for the presidency. However, he was unable to participate due to the judgment handed down in July 2017.

That sentence was affirmed by the Federal Regional Court of the Fourth Region in January 2018, which increased the sentence to twelve years and one month in prison.

Law, in its manifestations of political time, or the reorganization of the judicial apparatus or in its express form the double standards of the law, have become palpable, in our midst, no doubt. This is why the Panamanian people wonder why the same fate did not befall other politicians who were accused of the same or more serious charges than those against former President Martinelli, and nothing happened to them, because criminal justice was not even initiated. It neither moves nor, plain and simple, refuses to function or continue (the double standard of the law).

Now, from the sleeve, in the best style Mandrake-El Mago, the question of the attempt to unconstitutionality of JOSE RAUL MULINA’s candidacy for the President of the Republic is raised. Although it is true that the decisions ofThere is a possibility of appeal to the electoral court, only in electoral matters through unconstitutional lawsuits, it is no less true that the Court itself has already rejected lawsuits of this nature when what is attacked, as the subject of a constitutional debate, has an intrinsic relationship with the interpretation of the electoral norm of the said instance, which is the one that has exclusive jurisdiction in matters of interpretation legal norms specific to electoral issues.

And that is exactly what the Electoral Court did, that is, it interpreted the norm in faithful compliance of the Constitution and decide that Mr. Mulino, in no way could he be disqualified, but as a candidate for The vice-presidency, with Mr. Martinelli disqualified, would suit this man, JOSE RAUL MULINO, for holding office as a candidate for the President of the Republic”.

Finally, it is worth noting that political calculations, as well as legal calculations, tend to lag far behind other types of calculations, which are much more specialized than the former: I am talking about the popular calculation, which has appeared in recent days. , expressing their political preferences and also defining that the “shots were fired” at those who believed that they had defeated the candidacy of the two political parties for the presidency, and who, according to polls, swept the remaining candidates by large percentages. Let’s face it, it is up to the electoral bodies to defend their independence and objectivity above the political passions of those, either as independents or as political parties, who are playing the game and tailoring the current election match.

But also to establish clear positions in the face of this pernicious attempt to legalize general elections, to its main actors, of a nation. God bless the country!