Although a panel of the Court returned the controversy over the election to the mayor of San Juan to the Court of First Instancethe resumption of the trial in that forum would be halted as the mayor Miguel Romero request for assessment High Council, as you expected you to do yesterday.
The former president of the Bar Association Arturo Hernandez He stressed that at this stage the Supreme Court would only face the controversy over jurisdiction, the very issue on which the panel is made up of appellate judges Fernando Bonilla Ortiz Nereida Cortés González Y Olga Birriel Cardona revoked, in divided decision, the higher court Anthony Cuevas
On January 29, Cuevas determined that the legal representation of Manuel Natal, aspirant of the Citizen Victory Movement (MVC), did not subpoena Romero within the five-day period of the filing of the lawsuit, but magistrates Bonilla Ortiz and Cortés González interpreted that the electoral law prescribes a special procedure that does not require a simple subpoena, but that the court has jurisdiction once the defendant candidate receives a copy of the appeal that questions the election results.
That notification, according to court documents, took place on January 17, three days after Natal presented her challenge to the election, in which, as a remedy for the alleged fraud that took place during the general vote, she asked for a new vote between and voting voters in their absence.
Romero argued in his dismissal drafts that Natal’s representatives did not deliver a subpoena to the San Juan Municipality legal office until January 21 – seven days after the challenge was filed, but the appellant did not resolve that point as academic.
Hernández recalled that the Supreme Court made the provisions in the article 10.15 new Elections Act, which governs the litigation process and is the basis of this legal controversy.
“Any candidate contesting the election of another shall, within ten (10) days of the date of notification of the certification, appear before a judge in the Chamber of the Judicial Region of San Juan, designated in accordance with Chapter XIII of this Act. , present. of election for any elective public office in the general control, a letter stating under oath the reasons on which the challenge is based, which must be such that, if proven, would be sufficient to confirm the outcome of the election. A true and exact copy of the notice of objection will be communicated to the offending Candidate and will be delivered in person, within five (5) days of its presentation, ”states the text of the controversial statute, stating that the offending candidate a response “within ten (10) days of the date you are notified” of the challenge.
“The notice, letter and answer prescribed in this Act may be completed by any authorized person to testify and will be served by hand delivery to the respective parties, to their election representatives, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. of Civil Procedure or at the addressee’s place of residence or office, ”adds Article 10.15.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal stated that “a careful analysis of Article 10.15 reveals that the legislature has omitted the use of the term subpoena and refers instead to the notification of the letter of challenge by personal delivery.”
Regarding the arguments the Supreme Court would consider resolving the jurisdiction controversy, and in the absence of local case law “in electoral matters,” Hernández stated that “it would likely be necessary to (analyze) rulings from another jurisdiction. . To resort to writers and use appropriate approaches ”.
Although the civil procedure rules allow 30 days to go to the Supreme Court with an appeal for certiorariRomero will have to do it much sooner, Hernández said, if he doesn’t want to risk the Court of First Instance judging Natal’s allegations on their merits.
After the appeal was filed, Hernández stated that the maximum forum would not be long before a conclusion was reached.
“I have not seen that (delay) has been the case in cases of a similar nature. In any case, this will somehow affect the execution of an acting mayor and the possibility that the relative normality that exists today will be changed, given the possibility that the scenario could change, ” said the former. candidate for rule by the extinct Sovereign Union Movement
Hernández did not rule out that if the Supreme Court gave Natal an unfavorable decision, the MVC candidate could try to file his claim with the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing that the alleged illegalities restricted the voting rights of San Juan voters.
Natal’s objection means that 6,593 “illegal” municipal ballots were counted in the check, either because they were votes that counted more than the number of early and absent voters, because they were missing a tract evidenced by the incident record, or because they didn’t fold had.
Romero was certified mayor with an advantage of 3,465 votes, including a difference of nearly 6,000 votes from Natal in the 77 units of the capital’s five districts, where votes for early and absentee were counted.