Although a panel of Court of Appeal has postponed the controversy over the election of the mayor of San Juan to Court of first instance, the resumption of the process in that forum would be stopped if the mayor Miguel Romero request review at Supreme Court, as you anticipated yesterday that you will do.
Former President of the Bar Arturo Hernandez He stressed that at this stage, the Supreme Court will face only the jurisdictional controversy, precisely the issue that the panel of appellate judges Fernando Bonilla Ortiz, Nereida Cortés González Yes Olga Birriel Cardona revoked, in a divided decision, the superior judge Anthony Cuevas.
On January 29, Cuevas ruled that the legal representation of Manuel Natal, aspiring to Citizen Victory Movement (MVC), had failed to summon Romero within five days of the trial, but magistrates Bonilla Ortiz and Cortés González interpreted that the electoral law provides for a special procedure that does not require a regular summons, but rather that the court assumes jurisdiction once the challenged candidate receives a copy of the appeal questioning the election result.
This notification, according to court documents, took place on January 17, three days after Natal filed her appeal in the elections, in which she requested, as a remedy for the alleged fraud that took place in the general vote, a new vote between start and absentee voters.
Romero, in his requests for dismissal, claimed that it was not until 21 January – seven days after the appeal was lodged – that Natal’s representatives lodged a summons with the San Juan City Council’s Legal Affairs Office, but the appellant did not resolve this point as academic. .
Hernández recalled that the Supreme Court had not yet had to interpret the provisions contained in Article 10.15 new Electoral code, which governs the appeal process and forms the basis of this jurisdictional controversy.
“Any candidate contesting the election of another must appear before a judge in the chamber of the San Juan Judicial Region designated in accordance with Chapter XIII of this Act and within ten (10) days from the date of notification of the certificate of election for each public office. elective in general control, a letter, stating under oath the reasons on which the challenge is based, which must be of such a nature that, if proven, it would be sufficient to change the outcome of the election. A true and exact copy of the letter of objection will be served on the challenged candidate and will be delivered in person, within five (5) days of submission “, the text of the disputed statute states, stating that the challenged candidate must submit a reply within ten (10) days from the date on which you receive the notification ”regarding the appeal.
“The notification, writing and reply provided for in this law may be completed by any person competent to testify and shall be communicated by personal delivery to the parties concerned, to their electoral representatives, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure or at residence or the office of the person to whom it is addressed “, adds Article 10.15.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal stated that “a careful analysis of Article 10.15 reveals that the legislature failed to use the term of the summons and, instead, refers to the service of the summons by its personal delivery.”
Regarding the arguments that the Supreme Court would consider in resolving the jurisdictional controversy and in the absence of local jurisprudence “in electoral matters”, Hernández stated that it would probably be necessary (analysis of judgments in) another jurisdiction. Let’s turn to writers and use the right approaches. “
Although the rules of civil procedure allow 30 days to go to the Supreme Court on appeal certiorariRomero will have to do it much sooner, Hernández said, if he does not want to risk the Court of First Instance starting to assess the allegations made by Natal on their merits.
Once the appeal was filed, Hernández said the maximum forum should not take long to reach a conclusion.
“I did not see that (the delay) was the case in cases of a similar nature. In any case, this will affect in one way or another in the execution of an incumbent mayor and the possibility that the relative normality that exists today will be changed, given the possibility that the scenario will change, “said the former candidate for leadership. to the missing The Sovereign Union Movement.
Hernández did not rule out that if the Supreme Court ruled against Natal, the MVC candidate could try to bring his claim to court. United States Supreme Court, arguing that the alleged illegalities restrict the right to vote of San Juan voters.
Natal’s challenge claims that 6,593 “illegal” municipal ballots were counted in control, either because they were counted over the number of early and absent voters, because they did not have a tract highlighted in the incident records, or because they had no folds. .
Romero was certified primary with an advantage of 3,465 votes, which includes a difference of almost 6,000 votes compared to Natal in the 77 units in the five sections of the capital, where early and absent votes were counted.