The decision was announced that same Thursday, July 13, after appeals aimed at removing Judge Ibáñez from the discussion were dismissed Leaking the meaning of the presentation to the press, despite its confidentiality, has repercussions involved in the decision of the other judges due to public pressure.
Once this matter is resolved, the Constitutional Court would discuss the presentation of Judge Ibáñez, who, according to the same sources consulted by SEMANA, has the support of the eight judges that make up the room to be approved, without counting the speakers themselves.
The matter is a priority at the Court, which has declared it a “national emergency” and will therefore have a flexible process. In addition, it is worth remembering that the court recently ruled this For the first time, you have the opportunity to temporarily suspend laws from the start of your studies when deciding whether or not to align with the Constitution.
What does the lawsuit against “total peace” say?
A lawsuit was received by the Constitutional Court demanding the repeal of Law 2272 of 2022, which gives the government powers to advance the process of peace talks with gangs and illegal armed groups that are granted political status.
Claim of a Criminal Defense Attorney Jorge Pava points out that the principle of consecutiveness was broken for the law contained amendments in its articles which were not discussed in the joint commissions, but made their way into the articles pending debate in the plenary session of the House of Representatives.
The law underwent significant and untimely changes in the legislative process, which meant that the possibility of granting pardons or amnesties to persons who decided to relapse after having benefited from previous peace processes could no longer be debated in committees and plenary sessions , but introduced at the last minute behind the backs of Congress and, of course, the country. And that violation alone is legal grounds for the court to declare it unenforceable.”
This means that the bill would have been voted on without sufficient information from Congressmen, that there would have been articles that did not go through the four debates required for this type of bill, and that these would allow repeat offenders to renegotiate with the government .
According to the plaintiff These articles directly benefit FARC dissidentsand other criminal groups if “they are not entitled to do so on the basis of constitutional and jurisprudential requirements”.
This is the full interview with Jorge Enrique Pava, the lawyer who shook “total peace”:
According to SEMANA, the presentation that judge Jorge Enrique Ibáñez gave to his eight roommates earlier this week: is keen to call for the repeal of this law because it believes there were indeed procedural flaws in its approval by Congress of the Republic and because it did not have the prior draft to be sought from the Criminal Policy Council.
In the presentation, Supreme Court sources warn that the law is unconstitutional and therefore cannot be supported. For Judge Ibáñez’s argument to be acceptable, the paper must have the affirmative vote of at least five of the nine judges who make up the room.
Iván Márquez and President Gustavo Petro. | Photo: Photomontage: Farc/SEMANA
SEMANA consulted constitutional lawyer Juan Carlos Charry, who pointed to the errors, intentional or unintentional, that the law’s process in the legislature could have had.
“According to the constitution, the Attorney General is involved in shaping state policy in criminal matters as part of his special functions.” Therefore, the above official should have participated in the legislative initiative and its processing in Congressfailure to do so would result in a violation of the overarching rule.
It added that “Article 66, Transitional Paragraph 2, of the Constitution provides for this.” In no event shall transitional justice be used against members of a demobilized armed group who continue to commit crimes. As a result, repeat offenders could be granted amnesties and pardons, but should be responsible before the ordinary criminal justice system for crimes of international gravity and those not subject to pardon.”
The constitutional lawyer consulted by SEMANA also referred to the Impact that will have a court decision that accepts Judge Ibáñez’s arguments and declares the law of “total peace” unconstitutional.
“One would be in the future so all of the above would be valid but could not be applied in the future. The other effect is that they were retroactive, so the previous unconsolidated situations would become invalid; or eventually postponed for a year or so to allow the administration and Congress to process another peace policy law while they apply the censored law,” Charry explained.
The House of Representatives approved the government’s “total peace”. | Photo by : WEEK
The constitutional lawyer also draws attention to the fact that in the event that the government’s decision is contrary to the interests of the government, The court and its judges are branded enemies of peace.
“Anyone who wants to make the Constitutional Court in favor of or against the government is doing no favors, because their job is to enforce the rules of the game of politics, namely impartiality and independence.” We do not know what his decision will be on this or other matters of government interest , but regardless of the direction in which they are taken, we must adhere to them and respect them as long as they serve to defend the Constitution,” he said.
President Gustavo Petro, who focuses on “total peace” and social reforms, has not met the expectations of some social and cultural sectors. | Photo: Juan Carlos Sierra
Judge Ibañez’s presentation said that the procedural flaws in the editing of the “total peace” law rendered it unconstitutional and therefore must be dropped. The paper states that in this order of ideas The government will not be able to further advance the approach or dialogue with criminal groups until a new law for such purposes is drafted.