Post by scumbuster on Mar 3, 2016 12:44:45 GMT -5
VenEconomy: "Judgment No. 9" of Venezuela’s Supreme Court of Justice
From the Editors of VenEconomy
The Supreme Court of (in) Justice has done it again!
In less than three months, this unlawful and illegitimate court struck a blow against democratic legality in Venezuela. As José Ignacio Hernández, a Venezuelan lawyer, rightly put it when concluding his article "What did the Constitutional Chamber say on the control powers of the National Assembly?," published in the web site of digital magazine Prodavinci: "the Constitutional Chamber silences democracy and popular representation when attempting to silence the National Assembly."
In another reinterpretation of the Constitution, and according to a presentation of judge Arcadio Delgado Rosales, the Constitutional Chamber put on Tuesday unacceptable limits to the controlling functions of the National Assembly.
Functions clearly provided for in Article 219 of the National Constitution, saying that controls shall be exercised by the National Assembly on both the Government and the National Public Administration. And, as a body elected by the people, it can also exercise them on other public authorities, thus overseeing the proper discharge of their functions.
Among other violations compiled and published in the national media by Hernández, as much as by other renowned lawyers such as Allan Brewer Carías, Pedro Alfonso Delpino and Juan Carlos Apitz, are:
1) That "the real issue is that the Constitutional Chamber took on a role of supremacy before the National Assembly and, in such a condition, will reduce the powers of the Assembly and void any law, arrangement or decision that the Assembly can dictate, when it so deems appropriate" (J.I. Hernández).
2) That the Constitutional Chamber is contradicting itself when stating that all public authorities are subject to rules and constitutional limits, and therefore "any attempt to violate such constitutional rules must be avoided," but ignores the fact that it is actually part of these authorities. Hernandez asks the following question: who controls the Constitutional Chamber?
3) That "Judgment No. 9" takes away from the National Assembly "its power to control and review its own actions" and "the power to revoke them if unconstitutional," declaring in advance null and void all acts dictated and to be dictated in this regard" (A. Brewer Carías). A control and review of the acts by the previous National Assembly, which in violation of all the rules, lapses and processes illegally appointed more than twenty judges at the end of their legislative functions in December of last year.
4) That "the chamber stopped being constitutional and became a constituent one, because it is creating its own Constitution. The judgment means taking competencies from the current National Assembly" (J.C. Apitz).
5) That "the Supreme Court of Justice ruled to protect itself. The judgment does not interpret the Constitution: it rewrites it. The Supreme Court is acting as a constituent power, and that is quite dangerous, since that power is in the hands of the people and not in those of seven people" (P. Alfonso Delpino).
6) That Judgment No 9 annuls future acts: "without knowing the report, the Supreme Court controls what does not exist. That goes contrary to the law because control always comes later" (P. Afonso Delpino).
7) That, according to the Constitutional Chamber, is not entirely true that the National Assembly can only exercise control "on the Government and the National Public Administration," while denying that "it can control other branches of the public power such as the Citizen Power and the Judicial Power," and thus gives "preference to staff members who were not elected democratically on top of the representatives of the popular sovereignty" (J.I. Hernández).
Just as ridiculous is that if any government official is to be held accountable by the National Assembly, that shall be coordinated by the Executive Vice Presidency, and may do so in writing. Apart from the fact that the members of the armed forces are also spared from the control of the Parliament, who shall only be accountable to their Commander-in-Chief, the President of the Republic."
This outburst comes at a time when the National Assembly announced it had found at least 17 irregularities in the selection and appointment of the 34 judges (13 chiefs and 21 deputies) by the parliamentary majority of the ruling party in December of last year.
While citizens become more desperate for food, medicines and at the mercy of dangerous criminals, the Supreme Court silences the only voice that represents them.
Who will put an end to this dictatorial scheme? How will they pull it off?
From the Editors of VenEconomy
The Supreme Court of (in) Justice has done it again!
In less than three months, this unlawful and illegitimate court struck a blow against democratic legality in Venezuela. As José Ignacio Hernández, a Venezuelan lawyer, rightly put it when concluding his article "What did the Constitutional Chamber say on the control powers of the National Assembly?," published in the web site of digital magazine Prodavinci: "the Constitutional Chamber silences democracy and popular representation when attempting to silence the National Assembly."
In another reinterpretation of the Constitution, and according to a presentation of judge Arcadio Delgado Rosales, the Constitutional Chamber put on Tuesday unacceptable limits to the controlling functions of the National Assembly.
Functions clearly provided for in Article 219 of the National Constitution, saying that controls shall be exercised by the National Assembly on both the Government and the National Public Administration. And, as a body elected by the people, it can also exercise them on other public authorities, thus overseeing the proper discharge of their functions.
Among other violations compiled and published in the national media by Hernández, as much as by other renowned lawyers such as Allan Brewer Carías, Pedro Alfonso Delpino and Juan Carlos Apitz, are:
1) That "the real issue is that the Constitutional Chamber took on a role of supremacy before the National Assembly and, in such a condition, will reduce the powers of the Assembly and void any law, arrangement or decision that the Assembly can dictate, when it so deems appropriate" (J.I. Hernández).
2) That the Constitutional Chamber is contradicting itself when stating that all public authorities are subject to rules and constitutional limits, and therefore "any attempt to violate such constitutional rules must be avoided," but ignores the fact that it is actually part of these authorities. Hernandez asks the following question: who controls the Constitutional Chamber?
3) That "Judgment No. 9" takes away from the National Assembly "its power to control and review its own actions" and "the power to revoke them if unconstitutional," declaring in advance null and void all acts dictated and to be dictated in this regard" (A. Brewer Carías). A control and review of the acts by the previous National Assembly, which in violation of all the rules, lapses and processes illegally appointed more than twenty judges at the end of their legislative functions in December of last year.
4) That "the chamber stopped being constitutional and became a constituent one, because it is creating its own Constitution. The judgment means taking competencies from the current National Assembly" (J.C. Apitz).
5) That "the Supreme Court of Justice ruled to protect itself. The judgment does not interpret the Constitution: it rewrites it. The Supreme Court is acting as a constituent power, and that is quite dangerous, since that power is in the hands of the people and not in those of seven people" (P. Alfonso Delpino).
6) That Judgment No 9 annuls future acts: "without knowing the report, the Supreme Court controls what does not exist. That goes contrary to the law because control always comes later" (P. Afonso Delpino).
7) That, according to the Constitutional Chamber, is not entirely true that the National Assembly can only exercise control "on the Government and the National Public Administration," while denying that "it can control other branches of the public power such as the Citizen Power and the Judicial Power," and thus gives "preference to staff members who were not elected democratically on top of the representatives of the popular sovereignty" (J.I. Hernández).
Just as ridiculous is that if any government official is to be held accountable by the National Assembly, that shall be coordinated by the Executive Vice Presidency, and may do so in writing. Apart from the fact that the members of the armed forces are also spared from the control of the Parliament, who shall only be accountable to their Commander-in-Chief, the President of the Republic."
This outburst comes at a time when the National Assembly announced it had found at least 17 irregularities in the selection and appointment of the 34 judges (13 chiefs and 21 deputies) by the parliamentary majority of the ruling party in December of last year.
While citizens become more desperate for food, medicines and at the mercy of dangerous criminals, the Supreme Court silences the only voice that represents them.
Who will put an end to this dictatorial scheme? How will they pull it off?