translated from Spanish: Unanimously the Court of Santiago rejected the appeal for protection filed by ME-O against servel

The Court of Appeals of Santiago unanimously rejected the appeal for protection filed by the president of the PRO, Marco Enríquez-Ominami, against the Electoral Service, which has disqualified him from voting and prevented from running for elected office. The Ninth Chamber of the court, composed of ministers Dobra Lusic, Lidia Poza and lawyer Rodrigo Asenjo, dismissed the legal action, after establishing that the Servel acted in accordance with the law. The ruling maintains that “although, with regard to the justice provided by the Ordinary Courts, they are responsible for the protection of the legitimate exercise of fundamental rights and their guarantees, it cannot, in turn, be ignored that with regard to political rights not strictly contemplated in article 20, such as the requirements for standing for elected office, the constituent of 1925, introduced a special chapter for the Electoral Qualifying Tribunal that remains to this day – modifications and improvements through – with its circuit of Regional Electoral Tribunals, in charge of resolving all conflicts over rights related to the general election, the qualification of the elections and the decision on the claims and other powers determined by law.” In this regard, Law No. 18,700 on Constitutional Organic Votes on Popular Votes and Ballots has established a specific and special procedure for hearing complaints such as those raised by the appellant for protection, which allows, by the way, to fulfill the function of interpreting the rules on requirements for submitting candidacies, “he adds. In addition, the document states that “neither is it visible (…) the urgency of this action, which is a decisive condition for the origin of the remedy of protection, since it is the primary reason justifying its use in these cases that the use of rapid and effective action may prevent irreparable harm to the appellant. In this case the participation in primaries has already happened and with respect to the other petitions that are formulated, it is not possible to have for certain that it has fulfilled the other requirements required by the laws.” Arbitrariness is the manifestation of a conduct of a State or a private entity, capricious and devoid of legal principles, that is, lacking reasonableness in acting or omitting, lack of proportion between its motives and the purpose or purpose to be achieved or rightly absence of adjustment between the means employed and the objective to be obtained or even non-existence of the facts that justify an action. And illegality occurs when the conduct of the State or of any individual does not agree with the legal norm that prescribes what is due, that is, conduct contrary to the legal order. What cannot be said to have occurred in this case from a possible interpretation given by the Electoral Service in relation to a customary communication from a Court of Guarantee, and therefore, it does not appear that constitutional protection can be provided,” he concludes.



Original source in Spanish

Related Posts

Add Comment