NewsWhore
03-25-2011, 06:40 PM
The opposition PRD filed an appeal against the violation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court of Justice yesterday. The appeal was filed by party president Miguel Vargas and the 72 PRD deputies.
The PRD says that the changes to the organic bill that governs the National Council of Magistracy were irregularly approved by Congress. Lawyers Eduardo Jorge Prats, a Constitutional expert, and Orlando Jorge Mera and Salim Ibarra submitted the appeal. The PRD says that when the Chamber of Deputies approved that bill with a simple majority it did so in violation to the Constitution that establishes in Art. 112 that any changes to organic laws require a two-thirds majority of those present at the session.
The PRD says that the present Supreme Court of Justice is the government body that should review allegations of constitutional violation until the new Constitutional Court goes into effect.
The PRD says that while under the previous Constitution a simple majority was enough to approve observed laws, this was changed in the 2010 Constitution.
In an op-ed contribution to Hoy today, lawyer Eduardo Jorge Prats quotes the opinion of constitutional expert Manuel Amiama who says that if the two-thirds majority is not secured for an observed bill sent by the President, then the observations of the President in vetoing the bill should be considered rejected. He says that another constitutional expert, Julio Brea Franco, shares this opinion. Recently in the case of the Organic Bill for the National Council of Magistracy, this did not obtain the majority demanded to keep the first law (Art. 102) nor that requested for the passing of organic bills (article 112).
Jorge Prats says this is a motivation for the right to veto to be exercised cautiously by the President. He said that the presidential observation obliges the bill to be reviewed again by legislators.
More... (http://www.dr1.com/index.html#3)
The PRD says that the changes to the organic bill that governs the National Council of Magistracy were irregularly approved by Congress. Lawyers Eduardo Jorge Prats, a Constitutional expert, and Orlando Jorge Mera and Salim Ibarra submitted the appeal. The PRD says that when the Chamber of Deputies approved that bill with a simple majority it did so in violation to the Constitution that establishes in Art. 112 that any changes to organic laws require a two-thirds majority of those present at the session.
The PRD says that the present Supreme Court of Justice is the government body that should review allegations of constitutional violation until the new Constitutional Court goes into effect.
The PRD says that while under the previous Constitution a simple majority was enough to approve observed laws, this was changed in the 2010 Constitution.
In an op-ed contribution to Hoy today, lawyer Eduardo Jorge Prats quotes the opinion of constitutional expert Manuel Amiama who says that if the two-thirds majority is not secured for an observed bill sent by the President, then the observations of the President in vetoing the bill should be considered rejected. He says that another constitutional expert, Julio Brea Franco, shares this opinion. Recently in the case of the Organic Bill for the National Council of Magistracy, this did not obtain the majority demanded to keep the first law (Art. 102) nor that requested for the passing of organic bills (article 112).
Jorge Prats says this is a motivation for the right to veto to be exercised cautiously by the President. He said that the presidential observation obliges the bill to be reviewed again by legislators.
More... (http://www.dr1.com/index.html#3)