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. 
  
