By Miguel Piedecasas, Chairman of the Judiciary. . Representative lawyers
The constitutional reform of 1994 incorporated the lawyers / as institutional decision on selection of judges; prosecution of the conduct and performance thereof; management of the resources of the judiciary and the regulatory authority for this power (Article 114 of the CN).
also joined lawyers / as in the structure of the Trial Jury, as established in the Article 115 of the Constitution.
in this way the lawyers / as part of institutional design, management and program on judicial policy of our Republic, as the marking of society, expressed through the conventional constituents.
the law 24.937, in its original text, provided that integrate the Council, 4 lawyers / as federal tuition, designated by the direct vote of the professionals with the federal registration. For choosing the D’Hondt system would be used, must be guaranteed the presence of lawyers inside the Republic.
In its initial structure, lawyers / as integrated the various board committees, including the Committee Selection and Judicial School.
it was expected that lawyers / as federal registration integraren lists of jurors were to proceed with the evaluation of applicants to national and federal judiciary.
These three topics were modified after the law 26,080.
This rule reduced the representation of lawyers / as federal registration two nominated by the direct vote of the professionals with the enrollment, must have at least one of them, domicile within the country.
the same law excluded from the Selection Committee of Judges and Judicial Academy lawyers / as no real foundation warrants, beyond expressions that were made in the presentation and discussion of that legal reform.
also left out of the list of jurors lawyers / as federal registration.
the law 26,855 in items that were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the previous “Rizzo”, postulated that lawyers / as should be three (two for the majority and one by the minority); allowing its integration into the Selection Committee of Judges and Judicial school and kept excluded from the list of jurors.
These are the three issues on which we can reflect.
Integration current (two lawyers / as, one by the City of Buenos Aires and another for the rest of the Argentine Provinces) is meager and unreasonable. There is no basis for amount less than the Judges, Senators and Deputies or not to hold a single lawyer can represent lawyers / as of all Argentine provinces. This double argument is based on the Constitution has not established any primacy of one establishment over another and on the contrary be maintained equal for each of the expressions estamentarias representation. On the other hand, the federal structure of our country demands at all times and in every institution that policy, institutional, constitutional definition is respected at the time of the formation of the constitutional organs of the Republic, otherwise it would violate via legal, not only the fundamental constitutional norms but the spirit of our nation, which is essentially federal by definition original, essential, structural and permanent.
the exclusion of lawyers / as of the Selection Committee Magistrates and Judicial School, not only is devoid of real and sufficient foundation, is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
the unconstitutionality clear from the text of Article 114 of the Constitution, according to our interpretation, which integrates the Council with the political establishment, judges, lawyers, and others in the scientific and academic fields, without making any exclusion regarding participation in one or another commission. Immediately afterwards, these members of the Council (all) will have as attribution, selected by public tender candidates to the lower courts.
It is clear and concrete that lawyers must, constitutionally, to participate in this process selection, since no pattern or argument that can be inferred from the constitutional provision authorizes exclusion is the total or partial.
what is the reason to exclude the establishment of lawyers / as the (only) Selection Committee?
What is the reason for including all judges and no lawyer / a?
What is the reason to include four representatives of the political establishment and no lawyer / a?
what is the reason or argument to include the sole representative of the academic establishment and scientist and a lawyer / a?
the argument given was that of that lawyers / as might have interference in the regulation of fees and as judges / as are those who would regularly after his appointment, it could affect your judgment. Really nonsense, along with a clear discriminatory and unconstitutional assertion.
Nor understand or can be justified that lawyers / as not up the lists of Jurors, since meeting the legal ends that are required, constitute an essential element in this policy, academic, managerial and institutional selection involves choosing the candidates for judges / as.
Why judges and lawyers and professors yes / no ?, as if all integrate the complex and collective process involving the service of Justice and we are fully able to perform evaluations and assessments necessary for proper, reasonable and fair selection of candidates for judges / national or federal as well.
so so we advocate that a future legal reform, three topics are taken into account:
1) Increased number of lawyers / as in the integration of the Council, never less than that of the other estates and a representation right of all lawyers / as of Argentina.
2) Establish lawyers / as members of the Selection Committee of Judges and Judicial School.
3) integrate lists Juries lawyers / as who meet the legal conditions for such a condition.
These three reforms will adapt the legal system to the Constitution and lawyers / as fulfilling the important role of participating in the political decision institutional selection of judges / national and state as fully and as the desire of society expressed through conventional constituents 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment