Two Periods: There are two, not three

Undoubtedly, constitutional issues always prove to be controversial in most cases. The question is debated to determine which is the constituent, the producer or the editor constitutional norms, when embodied in the Magna Carta or the Constitution certain norm which is an integral part of the set of articles Vol Basic standard. This is the power and knowledge to determine as closely as possible the meaning, content and scope of a constitutional norm, this is the true constitutional spirit, the will of the constituent.

The scholars of constitutional law In this sense, they recount the annals that collect discussions on draft standards. Reflections and analyzes that were given in response to this or that project of articles, interpretations that, as the guardian of the integrity of the constitutional texts, made The Supreme Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction –Exclusive knowledge of Lawsuits for unconstitutionality, Warnings of unconstitutionality, primarily). They do not stop consulting the opinions of authorized doctrinaires (authors of great power) of constitutional law, but, above all, it is about subjecting the interpretation to constitutional principles which, basically, allow us to conclude or specify the meaning of the constitutional norm in the context of all constitutional texts.

On the one hand, this is called the principle of universality, and on the other hand, the principle that the constitution is its own interpreter, which means, from this second aspect, that no interpretation of the norm you can dismantle the constitutional one other norms, because they all form the true constitutional meaning.

This, obviously, without omitting or excluding the principles of unity, practical agreement, functional correctness, integrating function, normative force and pro homine, among others, which become as transcendental in constitutional interpretationwho understand, finally, that traditional methods or principles of interpretation become, when they are not sufficient, also of little scope for achieving the real meaning of the constitutional norm.

These forms constitutional interpretationThe new ones show that classical methods of interpretation are not sufficient to achieve the justice of a concrete case in a constitutional matter. These traditional methods, which being traditional does not mean that they have been rejected, are the following: a. Grammatical criterion (literal meaning of the word), b.

Systematic criterion, c. Historical and legislative background, d. Teleological interpretation and e. Evolutionary interpretation”. That is, it is necessary to add new methods or principles of interpretation to them, in order to achieve a successful interpretation that is projective for the true meaning and scope of the constitutional norm being studied or analyzed, which, in the end, will end with the work of an authorized official interpreter of constitutional texts (Court), which must never cause or create, formulate, interpretations that go beyond, contradict, invalidate, undermine or neutralize the true spirit component and its will embodied in the norm.

On the basis of the above, let’s devote ourselves to a brief review of what is Article 178 of the Constitution, which literally reads: “Citizens who have been elected president and vice president of the Republic cannot be re-elected to the same position in the two immediately following presidential mandates.”

In the Official Gazette No. 19790 from 1983 This wording came up, the one we just made; however, in National Gazette no. 25176, in which the Uniform Text of the Constitution was published , we are not talking about “Citizens”, but about “Officials”, and instead of “re-elected”, the norm expresses “elected”. Since I believe that it is a wording that in principle should have been fully respected, literally, I do not believe or judge that it affects the correct constitutional interpretation for the purpose of specifying what the word “two presidential terms” means.

The question is simple. The norm does not allow entry analyze which refers to days or months. This controversy that is being waged that if a citizen who was president before two constitutional mandates has to wait for the second mandate to be confirmed after ten years (10) has passed, is a very easy, childish and hasty interpretation, except for the the true essence and spirit of the componentsince when the norm refers to “two periods”, it undoubtedly refers, as it is done in other Latin American constitutions, to two constitutional periods of the exercise of power, and when it ends is an irrelevant question for the purposes of which it speaks of “two periods”, and not about three, because if the argument is used that when the second period ended the electoral competition had already started and that someone would be left out, it is a question of misinterpretation that is separated from the rewritten constitutional text, since the The Constitution no doubt referred to for two constitutional periods, and not for a full or complete verification of ten (10) years.

There, where it is political whims and caprices have been enthroned to pervert the true and proper constitutional meaning of rules of this nature, device, fraud and gesture never seen. God bless the country!