The head of the prosecutors considered that the Supreme Court should allow the lawsuit against the governor since the republican system enshrined in the Constitution prevents successive re-elections.
In a lawsuit filed over the constitutionality of indefinite reelection in Formosa, the interim attorney Eduardo Casal ruled against the article of the Formosa constitution that enabled the governor Gildo Insfran to compete in elections without a limitation on the number of successive terms.
According to the opinion to which he agreed Scopethe attorney analyzed If article 132 of the Constitution of Formosa, By enshrining the possibility of indefinite re-election for the governor and vice-governor, it is compatible with the republican form of government that the provinces must guarantee in their institutional organization, according to the provisions of article 5 of the National Constitution. The magistrate concluded that no, Therefore, the claim for original jurisdiction should be accepted, given that there would be a counterpoint between the local constitution and what the National Constitution provides.
In this regard, Casal explained that, according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the validity of the republican system primarily presupposes the periodicity of government positions, but that, when it comes to the Executive Branch, that is not the only essential characteristic, since the The lack of alternation significantly affects the separation of powers and the existence of an open system in which citizens can compete for access to public office under general conditions of equality.
In another point of his opinion, Casal based this conclusion not only on the single-person nature of the Executive Branch, which contrasts with the multiple members that make up the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch, but also on the nature of its functions that justify a different treatment in terms of the time that the person who occupies the position can remain in it. As an example, he pointed out, in this sense, that several consecutive mandates “expand the possibilities of appointing or influencing the integration of other public powers, or of those bodies in charge of controlling them.”
Thus, he concluded that “the republican system enshrined in the National Constitution, and that the provinces have been obliged to respect, implies the limitation of power. The multiple successive re-elections – potentially indefinite – conspire against the very purpose of the Rule of Law that they had in mind. look at our constituents, because given the way our institutions operate, perpetuation in power erodes the principle of separation of powers.”
The amparo had been presented by the Frente Amplio Formoseño Confederation and, after being rejected by the Formosa government, the Supreme Court was awaiting the response of the Attorney General of the Nation to resolve.
Source: Ambito
