On the basis of a regulation and a resolution, both listed as 01-2021, the Central Electoral Council passed two resolutions last Wednesday, January 27, setting the order in which the political parties will appear in the 2024 election vote. as well as the public funding they would receive.
The criterion for passing these two decisions was based on the idea of adding up the valid votes received individually by each political organization at the three levels held in the last elections, i.e. presidential, senatorial and deputies.
The impact those decisions have had on the national political scene is staggering. The method used by the electoral body to distribute economic resources to political organizations has aroused widespread rejection in national public opinion as it weakens the party system, affects the administrative climate and violates constitutional and legal provisions.
The magnitude of the alarm generated by the JCE decision was such that it triggered the unusual fact that twenty organizations from across the national political spectrum have raised their voices and called for it to be amended because it was dishonest, scandalous and unfair.
It is difficult to find a precedent in the history of the Central Electoral Council, in which twenty political organizations wrote to the electoral institution to reconsider a decision because it threatens the stability and survival of the party system.
It is even rarer to find an episode in which the first major decision passed by a new plenary would have provoked a reaction of outrage in the political parties in general of such magnitude as that caused by the foolish approach of the electoral council.
NULLITY AND LEGISLATIVE SILENCE
The situation is worse when it is taken into account that the antecedent of the recent decision of the Central Electoral Council can be found in Resolution No. 02-2017 of February 7, 2017, which established the same criteria for adding up the votes valid at all three levels to allocate public funding to partisan organizations.
What happened to that 2017 resolution, drafted in the same terms as the JCE’s now?
Just that it was annulled. This is so, through a Superior Electoral Court judgment number 013-2017 dated April 26, 2017.
In its device, the sentence reads as follows: “ It overturns with all legal consequences resolution No. 02/2017, issued by the Central Electoral Council (JCE), on February 7, 2017, for violation of Articles 69.5 and 110 of the Constitution. of the Republic, in accordance with the reasons set out in this judgment. “
Thus, there was already a precedent of declaring unconstitutionality of a resolution setting as a criterion for the allocation of public resources to political parties the sum of valid votes at the three electoral levels.
If that antecedent already existed, namely a declaration of unconstitutionality to a resolution setting the same criteria as referred to in Regulation No 01-2021, why was it repeated despite its previous rejection?
This is so absurd, incoherent and ridiculous that one should perhaps find the answer by consulting the Oracle of Delphi. There is no legal provision establishing the methodology or criteria to be used to distribute public funds among political parties. It does not appear in the Constitution of the Republic. Nor is it in party law; and it is absent from the electoral regime legislation.
The only reference or guide on this matter is Article 61 of Law 33-18 on political parties, groups and movements, which specifies the criterion that serves as the basis for the distribution of public funds.
It puts it this way: eighty percent (80%), of those parties that obtained more than five percent of valid votes in the last election; twelve percent (12%) of those who have achieved more than one percent (1%) and less than five percent (5%); and eight percent (8%) of those who achieved between zero points, one percent (0.01%) and one percent (1%) of the valid votes obtained. As can be seen, this legal provision does not specify which of the election levels is required to access public funds. Nor does it indicate that the central polling station must add, multiply, divide, average, or perform a math problem to determine the percentage corresponding to each lot.
As a result, if a political organization has obtained more than 5%, more than 1% and more than 0.01% of the valid votes cast in the last election, it has a legitimate right to participate in the government funding provided for by our electoral law.
CHANGE A MISCARE
In view of the gaps, ambiguity or inadequacy of the law, it is the responsibility of the Central Electoral Council to exercise its regulatory powers in all matters pertaining to its competence, as provided for in Article 215 of the Constitution of the Republic.
But he can’t do it in a whimsical or fanciful way. It must do so on the basis of the principles of equality, as well as those of reasonableness and favor, considered in the application and interpretation of the fundamental rights and safeguards provided in Articles 39, 74.2 and 74.4 of our Magna Carta. The right to choose and to qualify, freedom of association, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of movement are fundamental rights enjoyed by political parties.
Since this is the case, it is obvious that the Central Electoral Committee should have applied the above principles of fairness, reasonableness and favor in establishing the criteria for allocating resources to political parties based on the percentages set out in the latter. elections have been won.
However, he did not continue that way. On the contrary, in open violation of the Constitution, it established a summation formula by which it decided to allocate resources in the most unequal, irrational and unfair way imaginable, at the expense of democracy and the strengthening of the party system in the Republic of Dominican .
It did this by allocating 80 percent of the resources to two parties; 12 percent for five parties; and 8 percent to 18 parties. The arbitrary and improper arithmetic formula of the Central Electoral Council in practice ignored the will of the voters who gave an organization like the Fuerza del Pueblo 5.69 percent of the valid votes in the presidential election, making it in a majority party with the right to obtain financing corresponding to that category
Like a ray of light in the midst of the gloomy darkness that Regulation No. 01-2021 has represented, for the consolidation of democracy and the strengthening of parties, Judge Dolores Altagracia Fernández Sánchez, titular member of the Central Electoral Council, with his motivated vote against, he opens a path of hope to return to the path of reason, justice and justice.
In his already anthological decision, he stated: “In our opinion, the criteria established in Regulation No. 01-2021 are the sum of valid votes received individually by each party organization at the three levels selected in the last elections on July 5. were contested, 2020, not applicable on the grounds of violation of the principle of equality as set out in Article 39 of the Substantive Face and the principles of reasonableness and favoritism. “
Congratulations, magistrate!