Legislative Confrontation, Train Clash between the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Republic regarding the choice of the Ombudsman, His Substitutes and Deputies

By Carlos Manuel Mesa

Why did the Chamber of Deputies not comply with the Senate's observations? Why do you say that the Senate does not have constitutional, legal and regulatory support? What is your return performance is inappropriate? Why do you express that the action of the Senate implies a breach or abandonment of its exclusive functions? Was the Senate of the Republic prevented from Controlling the Legality of Resolution No. 00146, of March 23, 2021, as the Chamber of Deputies maintains in its report? Why do they threaten the Senate with proceeding to submit to the Supreme Court of Justice the shortlists to elect the Ombudsman, his Alternates and Deputies?

On May 5 (05), 2021, the Special Commission of the Ombudsman of the Chamber of Deputies of the Dominican Republic issued a Report on the Resolution Returned by the Senate of the Republic of the Ternas for the Choice of the Ombudsman , Their Substitutes and Their Deputies, modifying Resolution No. 000146, of March 23, 2021, and that it was returned by the Senate of the Republic through official communication 000082, of April 7, 2021 due to "constitutional and legal inconsistencies."

This report reads as follows: “The Chamber of Deputies, through the Special Commission of the Ombudsman, began on May 28, 2019, a rigorous evaluation process for the conformation of the hot springs that would be referred to the Senate of the Republic for the election of the Ombudsman, his alternates and his deputies. In the exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of the Republic and Law No. 19-01, of February 1, 2001, which creates the Ombudsman, modified by Law No. 367-09 of December 23 of 2009, in the session of March 23, 2021, it approved Resolution No. 00146 based on the Report of the Initiative No. 05370-2020-2024-CD, rendered on the occasion of the initiative ”.

They continue to state that: “..this Chamber sent the Senate of the Republic the accreditation of the shortlists for the election of the Ombudsman, two alternates and three deputies, however, the Senate rejected the matter basing its criteria on what they called“ constitutional and legal inconsistencies ”, in which the Chamber of Deputies incurred exclusively in what concerns the shortlist of the deputies and, in addition, provides to“ return ”to the Chamber of Deputies, without making the choice of the Ombudsman, alternates and attachments ”, as stated by the Senate in its Official Letter No. 000082, of April 7, 2021, conditioning its return to the“ waiting for the remission of the resolution in accordance with the aforementioned, in order to continue with the corresponding constitutional procedure ”.

The report also states that:… ”On April 14, 2021, in ordinary session No.16, the indicated communication was read in Plenary. In ordinary session 20, on April 22, 2021, a Special Commission was created in order to study the decision adopted by the Senate of the Republic ”.

What was the Conclusion and Recommendation of this Commission?

He concluded by stating the following: “The Special Commission empowered to study and review the return made by the Senate of the Republic of the shortlists for the election of the Ombudsman, his alternates and his deputies, after carefully reviewing and analyzing the content of Resolution No. 00146, of March 23, 2021, approved by the Chamber of Deputies, and the basis and scope of the decision adopted by the Senate of the Republic, as stated in communication No. 000082, of April 7 of 2021, the report of the Technical Office for Legislative Review (OFITREL) on constitutional and legal aspects, and by virtue of the provisions established in the infine part of Article 80 of the Regulations of the Chamber of Deputies, namely: (...) Those matters that do not deserve to have this character, will be answered in the form of communication ”. Therefore, we suggest returning the file by means of a communication that contains the following considerations:

However, the situation is complicated and worsened with the communication sent to the President of the Senate of the Republic, which, copied verbatim, states the following:

HOUSE OF DEPUTIES OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

SPECIAL COMMISSION OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Honorable

Ing. Eduardo Estrella Virella

President of the Senate of the Republic

His Dispatch .-

Honorable Mr. President:

The Special Commission empowered to study the return by the Senate of the Republic of the Resolution of the Chamber of Deputies for the choice of the Ombudsman, his alternates and his deputies, after carefully reviewing and analyzing the content of Resolution No. .00146, of March 23, 2021, approved by the Chamber of Deputies, and the basis for the scope of the decision adopted by the Senate of the Republic, as stated in communication No. 000082 of April 7, 2021. It has a well express the following considerations:

 

1) In accordance with article 6 of the Constitution, this is the supreme norm of the Dominican State, therefore, for coherence, with fullness and independence of the legal system, said hierarchy is decisive and, for that reason, according to the aforementioned constitutional provision, all persons and bodies that exercise public powers “are subject to the Constitution, the supreme norm and foundation of the State's legal system. Any law, decree, resolution, regulation or act contrary to this Constitution are null and void by law ”.

2) That by virtue of the foregoing, the normative effects of a new Constitution, as happened with the proclamation of the substantive charter of 2010, encompass a wide range of transformations of the entire system and the legal order, in such a way that it occurs automatically a de jure adjustment of any provision that has a lower hierarchy within the system is not manifestly contrary to it and the public powers are gradually responsible for detecting and expiating the unconstitutionalities that, according to the aforementioned article 6, imply the nullity of full right.

3) That in the same vein, it is the doctrine on the existence of legal norms and systems that best illustrates these normative clarifications, because if on the one hand, by legal system it is understood: “Set of legal statements (which constitute the axiomatic basis of the system) that contain all its consequences ”and on the other hand it is clear that it is not a static system“ and that a dynamic system of norms is not a set of norms, but a sequence of sets: at each moment temporary, the set of norms that belong to the system is distinct (…) there should be no confusion regarding what the 2010 Constitution produced, in relation to Law No. 19-01, of February 1, 2001, which creates the Ombudsman, modified by Law No. 367-09, of December 23, 2009.

4) That in the same order of these ideas, it is evident that the Plenary of the Chamber of Deputies decided with strict adherence to the provisions of article 83, numeral 3, of the Constitution, the Regulations and the Legislative Procedure Manual, choosing and accrediting before the Senate of the Republic the shortlists in order and number that are constitutionally allowed.

5) That it is necessary to highlight that Law No. 19-01 of February 1, 2001, was modified in 2009, with the sole purpose of: a) Making the special majority (2/3) parts of the enrollment of both parties more flexible. chambers) so that from now on it will be 2/3 of the legislators present in the corresponding session; b) Expressly exclude the choice of accreditation of alternates; and c) Limit the number of those attached to the Ombudsman to no more than two.

6) That in this sense, in the constitutional reform of 2010, the legislator was entrusted with the power to nominate and accredit no more than two substitutes and no more than five deputies of the Ombudsman and, at the same time, with the purpose To envision adaptive scenarios in the State where there is no better interpreter than the legislator who is directly in contact with the reality in which he lives, it is indisputable that the constituent left the decision of how many substitutes and deputies to his will, as long as when there are no more than two or more than five, they would be the ones accompanying the ombudsman.

7) In this sense, what the Senate of the Republic calls "constitutional and legal inconsistencies" is nothing more than a correct exercise of connection between legal language and reality, because if the constituent had not wanted to introduce any change in the number of proposals in the selection of the Ombudsman, his alternates and his deputies, then he would not have introduced this precision on the threshold of choice that contemplates a maximum of two alternates and five deputies and, consequently, attributes to the legislator the power to propose, correspondingly, one to two alternates and one to five deputies.

8) That this has an obvious purpose, taking into account the logic of the deadlines for the selection of the Ombudsman, his alternates and his deputies: once the evaluation process and conformation of the shortlists that will be proposed have been exhausted, that of the maximum number of two substitutes and five deputies is not reached, the Chamber of Deputies was not seen

The Dominican political system trembles - Deputy Pedro Botello joins the defense of the constitution of the Dominican Republic, this time in support of the Apostle Cristopher, Dr. Cruz Jiminian, Virgilio Almanzar among others who with cape and sword are submitting to the Chamber of deputies for the violation of article 192 for the election of the Ombudsman.

In a meeting held in the Congress of the Republic in the office of Deputy Pedro Botello.

In a meeting held in the Congress of the Republic in the office of Deputy Pedro Botello, in an organized manner the Apostle José Cristopher, Virgilio Almanzar, a commission representing Dr. Cruz Jiminian, Dr. Carlos Meza, Dr. Núñez Cáceres, a representative commission of the national human rights commission, among other personalities who join this struggle, which out of sheer courage has been led by Dr. Apóstol José Cristopher.

At this meeting, deputy Pedro Botello expressed his agreement to support this struggle, which is not the struggle of a political party but of Dominican citizens who love this land, work for the communities and sectors abandoned by politicians to improve the quality of life of the Dominican and who today fight for a space that corresponds to them, the Ombudsman's Office.

Dr. Carlos Mesa supported his work within the framework of the law and expressed that his decline in his aspirations as ombudsman was such that he did not feel that he would be justly valued by that elective commission of the Chamber of Deputies that from the beginning was shown partisan and with favoritism.

For his part, the Apostle Cristopher encouraged those who have managed to unite in this fight, firstly praying before starting the meeting and during the meeting in a correct way exposing the violation of article 192 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic, thanked this important support to Deputy Pedro Botello and they scheduled a press conference for tomorrow where they will show the collective lawsuit that is being submitted to the members of the Chamber of Deputies for the violation of the constitution there will be widely publicized all the names of these social fighters, these fighters in favor of human rights who will be subjecting the members of the Chamber of Deputies, let us remember that in previous days an audio was leaked on social networks in which one of the lawyers of the Chamber of Deputies is heard Deputies saying that they will not accept under any reason that the Supreme Court of Justice influences the decisions of the Chamber of Deputies and that the artic ulo 192 with its sole paragraph is wrong and should not be in the constitution.

Let's wait until tomorrow to see what information this great commission will offer us. All it asks for is justice and a referendum where they give the people the opportunity to elect their next Ombudsman.

The president of the commission for the Ombudsman, Pedro Tineo, told Apostle Cristopher that he agrees that it is the Supreme Court of Justice that should elect the Ombudsman.

The president of the commission for the Ombudsman, Pedro Tineo, in a chance meeting with the Apostle José Cristopher, affirmed that he agrees that the competent entity according to the Constitution of the Dominican Republic to choose the ombudsman is the Supreme Court of Justice, then the Apostle Cristopher asked him what was the insistence on wanting the Chamber of Deputies to choose to which he replied that the majority held that it should be the Chamber of Deputies and that is why he also supported that decision and almost at the end In his dialogue, the Apostle José Cristopher asked him if his position as deputy in defense of the law and president of such a valuable commission is to remain in agreement and please the majority or to comply with the Constitution, to which Deputy Pedro Tineo only replied that is in agreement with the cause and the fight of the Apostle Christopher.

To protect the constitution, it is necessary for there to exist men of courage with gallantry who, regardless of anything, join in the defense of national regulations, it is the only way to make history and the Apostle Cristopher together with many organizations and a number of personalities that are have joined as Dr. Cruz Jiminian, Virgilio Almanzar, Carlos Mesa, Dr. Núñez Cáceres, Human Rights, the Bar Association among others are making history in the Dominican Republic.

Alfredo Pacheco says: "Although the evangelical José Cristopher continues with his pressure, the shortlist goes because the sole paragraph of Article 192 is incorrect."

The current president of the Chamber of Deputies Alfredo Pacheco assured that there is no blocked game to choose the next Ombudsman, that the shortlists have already been sent to the Senate headed by Pablo Ulloa, he also referred to the Apostle José Cristopher as the evangelical who continues to put pressure, since the Apostle José Cristopher in full law school and based on the violation of Article 192 of the Constitution demands that the authority be handed over to the Supreme Court of Justice for said election and following the regulations of the law already that the sole paragraph of article 192 cites that if the term given prior to the end of the current ombudsman's term has expired, the only entity that has the authority is the Supreme Court of Justice and since 2 years have passed since the management of Dr. Soyla Martínez is over, the Chamber of Deputies lost the power to deliver any shortlist a long time ago and everything they have done as part of it is null and void. e of the choice of the new Ombudsman, although as the audio that shows the defense lawyer of the Chamber of Deputies has already become viral on social networks ensuring that they as the first power of the Dominican State do not adhere to article 192 of the Constitution and much less its sole paragraph which they allege is wrong and should not be there, in this way Apostle José Cristopher expressed "that how it is possible that the same that generate the laws of the Dominican Republic deny turning off the Constitution of the Dominican Republic nation, then with what morals do they judge those who offend in our country because if their defense were valid which it is not, then any criminal could say that they do not adhere to the article of the Constitution that accuses them because they do not think it should be there and thus avoid their accusation regardless of the crime committed, therefore the legal chair that Dr. Carlos Mesa gave them in the last hearing in the Superior Administrative Court should e to reach the president of the Dominican Republic Luis Abinader because these political representatives who handle important positions in the Chamber of Deputies cannot be allowed to try to break the law at will and under our noses "

The president of the Chamber of Deputies to maintain a public tranquility or not accept the error by violating article 192 pretends not to give importance to the case, but the people who accompany and ask the Apostle José Cristopher as Ombudsman will not rest until they achieve that the that truly represent the people and that the Apostle José Cristopher has managed to unite in this fight such as Dr. Cruz Jiminian, Dr. Cáceres, Virgilio Almanzar, Carlos Mesa among other men of morality and ability to assume the defense of the Dominican people Whoever the Supreme Court of Justice or the people themselves in a referendum choose Apostle José Cristopher at the head of this great team of true social fighters, defenders of human rights, real community members who have been working for more than 30 years in favor of the Dominican people.