The institutional crisis In Holy Cross deepened in the last hours after the decision of the Supreme Court (TSJ) to declare unconstitutional the law intended to increase the number of members of the highest judicial body from five to nine.
The reform promoted by the governor Claudio Vidalaccelerated the political confrontation with Kirchnerism, which has ruled the province for the past three decades and which he accuses of blocking his management through its influence on the judiciary. In response, the opposition assures that Vidal is trying to “impose a new majority” with four.blue judges” in the regional court, proceed clumsily at the institutional level.
The ruling, signed by the majority of the historic judges, restored the traditional integration of the court and canceled the appointments recently promoted by the provincial president.
Officials and members of the Vidal government accused the judicial leadership of catering to the interests of Kirchnerism, a situation that the president himself has denounced since the start of his term in office in 2023. The executive rejects what it considers to be a continuity of the previous government’s influence on the structures of the local judiciary. According to provincial government sources consulted by Infobae, Refusal to expand the court simply consolidates an “entrenched” system of power and paralyzes needed changes in the administration of justice: “You are not allowing the government to govern,” it said at Government House.
However, Vidal is accused by the opposition and the Kirchner bloc of moving at an “expressive” pace and trying to control Santa Cruz’s justice system. They point to the lack of public debate and the use of simple majorities in the legislature to approve the reform and appoint the new members TSJquestioning the constitutionality of the procedure and the legality of the resulting actions.
The failure of TSJsigned by Renee Fernandez, Fernando Basanta, Maria de los Angeles Mercau And Paula Luduena – with the abstention from Daniel Mariani– considered that Law No. 3949 and all acts resulting from its sanction and application were invalid, therefore the appointments of members were canceled Sergio Acevedo, José Antonio Gonzalez Mora, Gabriel Contreras And Juan Lucio de la Vega. In this way, the integration provided for in Law 1600, which was already in force before the reform, was restored. In the ruling, the justices argued that the court’s expansion never produced valid legal effects.
One of the main reasons was that members rejected the position of the provincial state, which claimed that the matter under discussion was “political and non-justiciable” in nature. The court rejected the existence of “judicial zones” and reaffirmed the power of the judiciary to control reforms that affect the independence and composition of the constitutional closing body. In the text of the ruling, the judges claimed that the amendment contained no evidence supporting improving the functioning or access to justice, and even ignored arguments such as gender equality put forward in the original draft of the law.
The court also observed the legislative process and subsequent appointments. Among the irregularities identified, the judgment highlights the immediate transmission of the shortlists of candidates on the same day of the promulgation of the law; the holding of extraordinary and reserved legislative sessions despite the effectiveness of precautionary measures that recommended a suspension of the trial, and the simultaneous appointment of four judges within a minimum period. The judges emphasized that the maneuver threatened the country’s independence TSJThis changes the decision-making majority and violates Article 104 paragraph 25 of the state constitution. In addition, they pointed out that the law was passed without specifying the source of funding required for the new positions, as the province faces budget constraints and the judiciary suffers from resource cuts.
From the surroundings of VidalThey insist it is a remnant of provincial power.
About The Author
