Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
VENEZUELA: DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE
On January 22, 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice dictated three sentences of special importance:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE
OF VENEZUELA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 22, 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice dictated three sentences of special importance.
1. It is suspended the consultative referendum February 2, summoned by a directive meeting of the Electoral National Council ilegitimamente constituted, and breaking laws and effective regulations. For the same reason, are suspended all electoral processes, consultations and other mechanisms of voting or citizen electoral participation, until the National Assembly designates new authorities of the Electoral National Council according to the established in the Constitution and the Law of the Electoral Power.
2. The question in the consultative referendum programmed for February 2, is not "a fraud to the Constitution".
The question to which the consultative referendum makes reference, promoted by the opposition is: "Are you in agreement with asking the President of the Republic Citizen Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias for immediatly voluntary resign to the presidency?.
The fraudulent character of consultative referendum was argued by those who introduced the shelter resource at the court, indicating that it was to put under consultative referendum the anticipated completion of the mandate of the President of the Republic, being that this matter is reserved to revocatory referendum as a foresight in article 72 of the National Constitution.
Consultative referendum does not hold binding character, reason why "it cannot force the President of the Republic to resignation of his position, since the consultative character of the same one does not hold, to per definitionem, the obligation some derived from this consultation".
The Constitutional Room of the Supreme Court of Justice warns: "it is not possible that by means of the accomplishment of consultative referendum at foresight in article 71 of the Constitution it is legally viable to revoke the mandate to any civil employee of popular election, because the result of consultative referendum lacks binding effects for the organs of the public powers"
Consequently, the Constitutional Room considers that it is not possible that a "fraud to the Constitución" is committed by the accomplishment of consultative referendum, because does not imply the anticipated completion of the mandate of President of the Republic, nor any other obligation for the President or for the rest of the public powers.
For the removal of civil employees chosen by popular voting the stipulated in article 72 of the Constitution of the Bolivariana Republic of Venezuela must be applied: the Revocatory Referendum. This implies to fulfill the following conditions: 1) that has passed half of the period for which he was elect; 2) that a number not smaller of twenty percent (20%) of the voters enrolled in the corresponding circumscription ask for the accomplishment of revocatory referendum; 3) that an equal or greater number of voters than chose the civil employee would have voted in favor of the revocatory, and 4) that has concurred to referendum a number of voters equal or superior to twenty-five percent of the enrolled voters.
3. Article 350 of the Constitution cannot be used to unknow democratically elect organs of the Public Power and in agreement with the effective constitutional ordering.
This is exactly what have tried to make the dissident managers who sabotaged PDVSA, rebellious military that "liberated" Altamira Square, and those that have come calling to tributary disobedience and the ignorance of the legitimately constituted authorities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was copied and translated without
any prior contact or knowledge by the author, if some errors or bad translations are my failure here, sorry, this is a war !! I must act quick and individual... Sorry Julio Cesar if this action brings some harm to you.
-TrastorTranslator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL EMAIL MESSAGE IN SPANISH:
http://www.elistas.net/lista/lea/archivo/indice/3391/msg/3392/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECISIONES DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE JUSTICIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Miercoles 22 de Enero, 2003, el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia dictó tres sentencias de especial trascendencia.
1. Se suspende el referendo consultivo del 2 de Febrero, convocado por una junta directiva del Consejo Nacional Electoral ilegitimamente constituida, y violando leyes y reglamentos vigentes. Por la misma razón, quedan suspendidos todos los procesos electorales, consultas y demás mecanismos de votación o de participación electoral ciudadana, hasta que la Asamblea Nacional designe a las nuevas autoridades del Consejo Nacional Electoral conforme a lo establecido en la Constitución y en la Ley del Poder Electoral.
2. La pregunta del referendo consultivo programado para el 2 de Febrero no es "un fraude a la Constitución".
La pregunta a la que hace referencia el referendo consultivo promovido por la oposición es: "Está Ud. de acuerdo con solicitar al Presidente de la República Ciudadano Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías que de manera inmediata renuncie voluntariamente a su cargo?”.
El carácter fraudulento del referendo consultivo era argumentado por quienes introdujeron el recurso de amparo, señalando que se trataba de someter a referendo consultivo la terminación anticipada del mandato del Presidente de la República, siendo que dicha materia está reservada al referendo revocatorio previsto en el artículo 72 de la Constitución Nacional.
El referendo consultivo no detenta carácter vinculante, por lo que "no puede obligar al Presidente de la República a la dimisión de su cargo, dado que el carácter consultivo del mismo no sujeta, per definitionem, a obligación alguna derivada de dicha consulta".
La Sala Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia advierte: "No es posible que mediante la realización del referendo consultivo previsto en el artículo 71 de la Constitución sea jurídicamente viable revocar el mandato a algún funcionario de elección popular, debido a que el resultado del referendo consultivo carece de efectos vinculantes para los órganos de los poderes públicos"
En consecuencia, la Sala Constitucional dictamina que no es posible que se cometa un “fraude a la Constitución”mediante la realización del referendo consultivo, pues no implica la terminación anticipada del mandato de Presidente de la República, ni cualquier otra obligación para el Presidente o para el resto de los poderes públicos.
Para la remoción de funcionarios elegidos por votación popular debe aplicarse lo estipulado en el artículo 72 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela: el Referendo Revocatorio. Esto implica cumplir con las siguientes condiciones: 1) que haya transcurrido la mitad del período para el cual fue electo; 2) que un número no menor del veinte por ciento (20%) de los electores inscritos en la correspondiente circunscripción soliciten la realización del referendo revocatorio; 3) que igual o mayor número de electores que eligieron al funcionario hubieren votado a favor de la revocatoria, y 4) que haya concurrido al referendo un número de electores igual o superior al veinticinco por ciento de los electores inscritos.
3. El artículo 350 de la Constitución no puede ser utilizado para desconocer órganos del Poder Público electos democráticamente y de acuerdo con el ordenamiento constitucional vigente.
Esto es justamente lo que han pretendido hacer los gerentes rebeldes que sabotearon a PDVSA, los militares disidentes que "liberaron" la Plaza de Altamira, y los que han venido llamando a la desobediencia tributaria y al desconocimiento de las autoridades legítimamente constituidas.
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE
OF VENEZUELA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 22, 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice dictated three sentences of special importance.
1. It is suspended the consultative referendum February 2, summoned by a directive meeting of the Electoral National Council ilegitimamente constituted, and breaking laws and effective regulations. For the same reason, are suspended all electoral processes, consultations and other mechanisms of voting or citizen electoral participation, until the National Assembly designates new authorities of the Electoral National Council according to the established in the Constitution and the Law of the Electoral Power.
2. The question in the consultative referendum programmed for February 2, is not "a fraud to the Constitution".
The question to which the consultative referendum makes reference, promoted by the opposition is: "Are you in agreement with asking the President of the Republic Citizen Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias for immediatly voluntary resign to the presidency?.
The fraudulent character of consultative referendum was argued by those who introduced the shelter resource at the court, indicating that it was to put under consultative referendum the anticipated completion of the mandate of the President of the Republic, being that this matter is reserved to revocatory referendum as a foresight in article 72 of the National Constitution.
Consultative referendum does not hold binding character, reason why "it cannot force the President of the Republic to resignation of his position, since the consultative character of the same one does not hold, to per definitionem, the obligation some derived from this consultation".
The Constitutional Room of the Supreme Court of Justice warns: "it is not possible that by means of the accomplishment of consultative referendum at foresight in article 71 of the Constitution it is legally viable to revoke the mandate to any civil employee of popular election, because the result of consultative referendum lacks binding effects for the organs of the public powers"
Consequently, the Constitutional Room considers that it is not possible that a "fraud to the Constitución" is committed by the accomplishment of consultative referendum, because does not imply the anticipated completion of the mandate of President of the Republic, nor any other obligation for the President or for the rest of the public powers.
For the removal of civil employees chosen by popular voting the stipulated in article 72 of the Constitution of the Bolivariana Republic of Venezuela must be applied: the Revocatory Referendum. This implies to fulfill the following conditions: 1) that has passed half of the period for which he was elect; 2) that a number not smaller of twenty percent (20%) of the voters enrolled in the corresponding circumscription ask for the accomplishment of revocatory referendum; 3) that an equal or greater number of voters than chose the civil employee would have voted in favor of the revocatory, and 4) that has concurred to referendum a number of voters equal or superior to twenty-five percent of the enrolled voters.
3. Article 350 of the Constitution cannot be used to unknow democratically elect organs of the Public Power and in agreement with the effective constitutional ordering.
This is exactly what have tried to make the dissident managers who sabotaged PDVSA, rebellious military that "liberated" Altamira Square, and those that have come calling to tributary disobedience and the ignorance of the legitimately constituted authorities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was copied and translated without
any prior contact or knowledge by the author, if some errors or bad translations are my failure here, sorry, this is a war !! I must act quick and individual... Sorry Julio Cesar if this action brings some harm to you.
-TrastorTranslator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL EMAIL MESSAGE IN SPANISH:
http://www.elistas.net/lista/lea/archivo/indice/3391/msg/3392/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECISIONES DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE JUSTICIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Miercoles 22 de Enero, 2003, el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia dictó tres sentencias de especial trascendencia.
1. Se suspende el referendo consultivo del 2 de Febrero, convocado por una junta directiva del Consejo Nacional Electoral ilegitimamente constituida, y violando leyes y reglamentos vigentes. Por la misma razón, quedan suspendidos todos los procesos electorales, consultas y demás mecanismos de votación o de participación electoral ciudadana, hasta que la Asamblea Nacional designe a las nuevas autoridades del Consejo Nacional Electoral conforme a lo establecido en la Constitución y en la Ley del Poder Electoral.
2. La pregunta del referendo consultivo programado para el 2 de Febrero no es "un fraude a la Constitución".
La pregunta a la que hace referencia el referendo consultivo promovido por la oposición es: "Está Ud. de acuerdo con solicitar al Presidente de la República Ciudadano Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías que de manera inmediata renuncie voluntariamente a su cargo?”.
El carácter fraudulento del referendo consultivo era argumentado por quienes introdujeron el recurso de amparo, señalando que se trataba de someter a referendo consultivo la terminación anticipada del mandato del Presidente de la República, siendo que dicha materia está reservada al referendo revocatorio previsto en el artículo 72 de la Constitución Nacional.
El referendo consultivo no detenta carácter vinculante, por lo que "no puede obligar al Presidente de la República a la dimisión de su cargo, dado que el carácter consultivo del mismo no sujeta, per definitionem, a obligación alguna derivada de dicha consulta".
La Sala Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia advierte: "No es posible que mediante la realización del referendo consultivo previsto en el artículo 71 de la Constitución sea jurídicamente viable revocar el mandato a algún funcionario de elección popular, debido a que el resultado del referendo consultivo carece de efectos vinculantes para los órganos de los poderes públicos"
En consecuencia, la Sala Constitucional dictamina que no es posible que se cometa un “fraude a la Constitución”mediante la realización del referendo consultivo, pues no implica la terminación anticipada del mandato de Presidente de la República, ni cualquier otra obligación para el Presidente o para el resto de los poderes públicos.
Para la remoción de funcionarios elegidos por votación popular debe aplicarse lo estipulado en el artículo 72 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela: el Referendo Revocatorio. Esto implica cumplir con las siguientes condiciones: 1) que haya transcurrido la mitad del período para el cual fue electo; 2) que un número no menor del veinte por ciento (20%) de los electores inscritos en la correspondiente circunscripción soliciten la realización del referendo revocatorio; 3) que igual o mayor número de electores que eligieron al funcionario hubieren votado a favor de la revocatoria, y 4) que haya concurrido al referendo un número de electores igual o superior al veinticinco por ciento de los electores inscritos.
3. El artículo 350 de la Constitución no puede ser utilizado para desconocer órganos del Poder Público electos democráticamente y de acuerdo con el ordenamiento constitucional vigente.
Esto es justamente lo que han pretendido hacer los gerentes rebeldes que sabotearon a PDVSA, los militares disidentes que "liberaron" la Plaza de Altamira, y los que han venido llamando a la desobediencia tributaria y al desconocimiento de las autoridades legítimamente constituidas.
For more information:
http://www.elistas.net/lista/lea/archivo/i...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$290.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The opposition to President Chavez is mediating thru TV ads several times a day pieces of Chavez speeches, in one of these pieces, Chavez is saying aloud: even if they are millions asking me for a voluntary resignation as a President, I simply will not quit... (they are trying to put Chavez as a madman "dictator" who is not going to quit even if "all" the country ask him to leave)...
... I think Chavez is not being incongruence with laws, because the question of the referendum is just a question, it is not attached to any law saying that Chavez needs to quit, he is just obligated to answer the question, and he is answering: he is not quiting because he is supported by and also supporting the ones who didn't ask him to quit, the ones who want him as a president, whom I believe are more than the ones asking him desperately to quit from president right now. I think opposition is basing his ideology in how they have always managed elections and figureheads presidents in Venezuela: by media rating, they in the past have always flooded the public prior to elections with lots of differents polls and ratings, always manipulated to make public's minds prior to elections, to get to president the candidate they better need. And now they are driving all this referendum and public opinion matters against Chavez as a TV rating electoral show of the past.
Trastor