NewsWhore
02-15-2011, 02:10 PM
Lawyer Alberto Fiallo feels the Constitutional Court created to review Constitution issues studied by the Supreme Court of Justice and other courts will be inviable. In a review in Listin Diario, he called for revisions and that if these do not happen, the Constitutional Court will be known as the "Unconstitutional Court." He highlights that legislators established that the Constitutional Court will have 13 judges, and compares this to 9 judges in the US (pop. 310 million), 12 in Spain (pop. 48 million), 7 in Chile (pop. 17 million), 9 in Colombia (pop. 42 million), 5 in Bolivia (pop. 10 million). "Of course the problem is not in the quantity of members, but rather in the fact that at least 9 judges need to agree for a decision to be taken. Imagine the mission impossible of getting nine persons with different personal life stories, viewpoints and academic preparation to agree. It would be fair to think that with such a required high consensus, the court will be practically inviable," he writes.
He also comments that if five judges cannot make it to work, the court will not be able to session, because the bill does not contemplate substitutes.
Neither does the court establish who will try the judges if they commit penal or civil wrongdoings. Moreover, he points out that the bill does not prohibit the Constitutional Court from reviewing sentences against the members of the Court. "In other words, even if a judge is sentenced by a crime, the judges of the Court could revoke the sentence," he writes.
He also mentions that the bill does not establish when the work sessions will occur, nor a minimum attendance to the sessions nor how performance will be monitored. "This means that in practice, our constitutional judges can work when they want, miss out when they feel like it, and we will never know if they have been working," he comments.
He says the bill leaves up to the mood and favor of the president of the Court the workload. Fiallo writes that the president of the court will decide the cases they will review. The other judges are relieved of this responsibility. For the complete comments in Spanish, see http://www.listin.com.do/la-republica/2011/2/11/177167/El-tribunal-inconstitucional
More... (http://www.dr1.com/index.html#6)
He also comments that if five judges cannot make it to work, the court will not be able to session, because the bill does not contemplate substitutes.
Neither does the court establish who will try the judges if they commit penal or civil wrongdoings. Moreover, he points out that the bill does not prohibit the Constitutional Court from reviewing sentences against the members of the Court. "In other words, even if a judge is sentenced by a crime, the judges of the Court could revoke the sentence," he writes.
He also mentions that the bill does not establish when the work sessions will occur, nor a minimum attendance to the sessions nor how performance will be monitored. "This means that in practice, our constitutional judges can work when they want, miss out when they feel like it, and we will never know if they have been working," he comments.
He says the bill leaves up to the mood and favor of the president of the Court the workload. Fiallo writes that the president of the court will decide the cases they will review. The other judges are relieved of this responsibility. For the complete comments in Spanish, see http://www.listin.com.do/la-republica/2011/2/11/177167/El-tribunal-inconstitucional
More... (http://www.dr1.com/index.html#6)