The Constitutional Court, according to theory, is an important institution, if not fundamental in a country with the particular conditions of Guatemala. This is how it worked in the first years of its establishment, but now, because of the abuses committed when consulting it in an absurd way, or as the lawyers say, “openly frivolous”, it is on the same path as another equally discredited figure, despite its importance: protection. Applying the old legal aphorism of the possibility of improving the law, thanks to its constant review, the need to review the way in which the CC is integrated and the mandatory requirements for those who have the power to choose its ten members has been evidenced , holders and alternates.
The CANG eliminated an aspiring ex-university professor because he did not carry his degree. It smells like clear güizachada.
Mario Antonio Sandoval
The complications arise from the diverse quality of elected candidates and persons appointed to integrate it, as well as from the lack of requirements. Those appointed – that is, chosen in a whimsical and discretionary manner – represent the Executive, Legislative and Judicial bodies. These, moreover, cannot be challenged; that is to say, refuted, and for that reason there is no recourse against those who, for reasons that are often hidden, are awarded that position and thus must pay the support or favor with favorable resolutions to those who control or have kidnapped those powers of the Condition. The ability, suitability or experience is not important, so the decrease in the desire for the right people to integrate it is inevitable.
To increase the tragedy, the representative of the Executive depends on a single vote: that of the president. That of the Judicial Branch, of seven, and that of Congress, of 81. In the latter case, because to elect it you need half plus one of the 160 deputies. These three voters choose people « who are not going to turn around », which proves – for a change – the total disinterest in the benefit of the country. With these three votes, there is a majority for some resolutions in the CC. The other two members, elected (not appointed) by the Bar Association and the Higher University Council, can be challenged and in practice opens the door to obstacles of all kinds as a result of pressure and even blackmail. But, in theory, they are more representative.
The most elementary logic, in addition to the legal one, advises the obvious: seek changes in the process and conditions to integrate the CC. In the case of Congress, the last date to elect the two representatives is March 15, because they must take office on April 14 and be elected 30 days before. In the case of the Bar Association, an election is called for the four-day center. It is known that at least one case was excluded from the group of 17 applicants for a reason that was not only illegal, but also absurd, which casts doubt on the reasons invoked by the Board of Directors. In the case of the Higher University Council, it purged the files with the obvious aim of benefiting some applicants by eliminating others, without existing legal and valid reasons.
To my knowledge, an attorney was dismissed for reasons without any rationale. He is a collegiate, he has been a professor of Law, he also fulfills the other conditions, but he is denied participation for not having presented his title. It smells like güizachada, because other applicants do not meet fundamental conditions and were accepted. It is convenient to point this out because the possibility of constitutional interpretation by people with professional and even personal stains is implicit, and this weakens or ends up destroying the prior citizen confidence necessary to accept the causes of the verdicts. Let’s not forget that « the Constitution says what the Constitutional Court says it says. » Again there are justified fears of possible whimsical and fanciful interpretations.