Pro-government legislators question Article 72 because they understand that it censors freedom of expression.
A group of lawmakers in the government coalition began raising the possibility that the president Luis Lacalle Pou be the one that finally solves the controversy generated by the additive to Media law that was voted on in the Senate on Tuesday: the veto “it would be desirable” to put a limit on a provision that, because it goes against the freedom of expression of the media in Uruguay, It would be unconstitutional.
After the controversy unleashed by the surprise vote on the media law in the Senate last Tuesday, without going through committees or notifying the vice president Beatriz Argimon —president of the Upper House—; and the general rejection that caused the addition of article 72 proposed by Town meeting Regarding political communication, the presidential veto appears to be the least discordant solution in constitutional terms, parliamentary processes and, above all, keeping the coalition calm in times where electoral tensions begin to play an important role.
This is what is proposed by a group of pro-government legislators who acknowledge having opened the doors for the sector led by Guido Manini Ríos introduced into the legal text the statement that “citizens have the right to receive a political communication in a complete, impartial, serious, rigorous, partial and balanced manner among political actors”; in exchange for the votes to approve the law that has been circling the halls of the Parliament.
The presidential veto, the alternative
The president’s veto Lacalle Pou has been the chosen solution for the latest controversial issues within Parliament, with the aim of maintaining peace within the coalition and also leaving freedom of action in the Parliament. The most recent examples were the partial veto to prohibit prosecutors from working as lawyers in the private sphere, introduced in the last Accountability; and the veto, also partial, to the project that established economic coverage for former workers of House of Galicia.
For this reason, for the pro-government legislators, the veto can be the brake on an article that “contributes nothing to what is a very good law” and that “falls into the error of expecting the media to comply with certain rules,” according to the deputy told El País Ivan Posada, of the Independent Party. For the legislator, the lobbying additive is “inopportune and unnecessary.”
Neither the deputies of the Colorado Ope Pasquet Party and Martin Melazzi They agree with article 72 that censors freedom of expression, and stated that they would support an eventual veto given the null margin of action left for the Chamber of Deputies: is that the half-sanction with modifications in the Senate after approval in December in the Lower House leaves the latter with the rejection en bloc of the entire project as the only alternative to reverse the additive of Town meeting. An option that, in any case, would not be completely ruled out, since the votes are not yet guaranteed.
The Colorado Party will set its position on the possible veto next week, while in the National Party There are already voices that supported the possible and eventual decision to save the media law, avoiding the controversy of article 72 through the presidential veto which, if carried out, could also constitute a problem of another type: it would be the third presidential veto to a norm promoted by the lobbyists, in times, moreover, when each gesture can be decisive for the unity of the coalition in the face of the elections.
Source: Ambito
