Luis Guillermo Pérez Casas disappointed with his pilgrim presentation contrary to the law and the co
They besieged Judge Perez to present a favorable presentation to Yolanda Wong
The plenary of the National Electoral Council -CNE- to decide the fate of the candidacy for mayor of Cartagena de Yolanda Wong, which will be held on September 25, promises to be an experience that will mark the history of that Corporation. At the hearing I will present evidence of how Judge Perez was influenced by strange forces to dismiss the revocation request.
While this happens, close friends of the Wong campaign unleashed a strategy of false news and siege of the rapporteur, Luis Guillermo Pérez Casas. First, they disseminated within the CNE the species according to which the UP-Colombia Humana intended to support Yolanda Wong. This journalist consulted Adelina and denied this species:
«I have never contemplated joining Yolanda Wong. It is as if they said that you are going to support her ».
Then, they undertook an intense siege of Judge Perez through political relatives of the UP-Colombia Humana. This journalist was approached by recognized leaders of that Bogotá movement in order to modify my position regarding the case of the disability of the U candidate.
According to sources close to Yolanda Wong's campaign, Javier Cáceres Leal, former senator convicted of parapolitics, could be behind this strategy.
A pilgrim thesis
In the pilgrim thesis of magistrate Pérez Casas, who denies the revocation, as if he had copied the allegations of Yolanda Wong's attorney, Héctor Alfonso Carvajal, points out that the disabilities do not apply when it is an assignment. But the honorable magistrate Perez is forgotten that there are several judgments of the Council of State and the Constitutional Court (case of Governor Oneida Pinto and Governor Marina Lozano Ropero) who prove the opposite.
The arguments were presented by this journalist on the day of the test hearing on September 9. These arguments are in the revocation request filed on August 26.
Yolanda is disabled!
On September 25 - 32 days before the elections - the CNE magistrates in full will vote for the presentation of Judge Perez, who intended to be absent on the day of the vote. This was not possible due to the internal regulations. According to information from well-known sources, there would be no consensus in the CNE to vote an arbitrary resolution. Obviously it is contrary to law, constitution and jurisprudence.
There is no doubt, Yolanda is disabled. When he enrolled on July 25, 2019, he violated the incompatibility regime established by article 38.7 of Law 617 of 2000. It had only been 10 months and 8 days since he ceased to be the mayor in charge on September 20, 2018.
The incompatibility of Wong is so evident that it became a disability at the time of enrollment. For this reason, now they make the argument that it does not apply to her because she was the mayor in charge. But this concept has no legal or constitutional support.
Holder, manager or designee
The law does not discriminate to which title (elected, appointed or commissioned) the incompatibility applies to mayors as well as governors. That is, the title does not matter, what matters are the functions that constitute the materialization of the incompatibility. This became disability when Yolanda Wong enrolled within the prohibitive period.
Whatever the title or performance modality, they have the same faculties. This condition puts mayors or governors in material advantage, in the event that they register as candidates for any electoral process of the same period.
“(…) Thus, the prohibition directed to the governor (or mayor, which is the case of Yolanda Wong) or to whom he is appointed in his replacement - regardless of the title - of registering as a candidate for any office or corporation of choice popular within the twelve (12) months following the expiration of the period for which he was elected or appointed, (...) materially, constitutes a generic inability to access other positions or public jobs. Constitutional Court SU-625 of 2015
In fact, the Constitutional Court refers to article 31.7 of Law 617 of 2000 when it says "regardless of the title" of the replacement. The same that constitutes the incompatibilities of the mayors in article 38.7 of the mentioned law:
The mayors, as well as those who replace them in the exercise of office may not:
7. Register as a candidate for any position of popular election during the period for which you were elected. Law 617 of 2000
When it says "for which he was elected," of course, he refers to the replaced mayor and not the replacement. That is, Fifth War was chosen for the period that Manolo Duque was missing. The period expires in December 2019. Therefore all the replacements, (Sergio Londoño, Yolanda Wong and Pedrito Pereira, had to comply with this 12 month ban.
With this argument, the pilgrim thesis of Judge Pérez Casas to consider that the incompatibility does not apply because Yolanda Wong was commissioned and not designated or incumbent, falls under its own weight. Moreover, the aforementioned magistrate does not explain where he got his exotic statement.
Case of Marina Lozano
An emblematic case to refute the judgment of Judge Pérez Casas, who with that presentation calls into question the good reputation of the «Jaime Alvear» group of lawyers and the sectors of the left (the Polo and Colombia Humana that supported him), is that of Former Governor Marina Lozano. The election of this former governor as a deputy was declared void by the State Council. He also lost his endowment and sanctioned with 20 years of disability.
Marina Lozano served as secretary of the Women of Norte Santander, and then was in charge of the governorate. Similarly, Yolanda Wong was the secretary of the Interior and was then commissioned by President Santos as mayor, during which time she made a direct contract with the Edurbe for $ 81 billion. This fact put her at an advantage over the other candidates and the balance of democracy was broken.
What the Constitutional Court says
The Constitutional Court by means of judgment SU-625 of 2015, which is a ruling of unification, indicated that the final temporary element of disability, evidently, is materialized by the date of registration and not of the election.
In this unification ruling on the case of the governor in charge of the North of Santander Marina Lozano Ropero, the Court warns that she could not register, let alone be elected as a deputy. Since her commission period expired and until she enrolled, only ten (10) months and one (1) day had elapsed, a circumstance that disabled her to aspire to that public office.
It is the same situation of Yolanda Wong, who enrolled 10 months and eight days after leaving his position in the mayor's office of Cartagena. This is a precedent for Judge Pérez Casas to take it into account. He did not do so, because his sentence is not designed in law but is a route in fact violating the fundamental right to due process. Its content is arbitrary and very political that did not even consult with the evidence submitted by this applicant.
The Constitutional Court in this unification ruling referring to the case of Marina Lozano, who was the governor in charge. This sentence also served the magistrate of the Electoral Chamber of the State Council, Alberto Yepes to decree the nullity of the election of Oneida Pinto as governor of the guajira:
“Therefore, it can be affirmed, without any hesitation, that her election as a deputy was preceded by an action manifestly contrary to the Constitution and the law, whose origin goes back to the act of registration.” SU-625 of 2015
What the State Council says
The State Council, Electoral Chamber, in a ruling dated March 7, 2013, issued in the file No. 540012331000201200027-01 the First Section of the State Council, decreed the nullity of the election of Deputy Marina Lozano:
“Upon confirming that the exercise of the position as Governor in Charge was carried out on September 28, 2010 and the registration as a candidate for the Departmental Assembly of the North of Santander occurred on July 29, 2011, it is forced to conclude that the prohibitive conduct materialized even in a term less than the twelve (12) months constitutionally stipulated for the congressmen, so it is found that, in effect, the Deputy incurred the incompatibility that in the terms of numeral 7 of article 31 and article 32 of the Law 617 of 2000 (…) ”
In the same way, the State Council when it says “when verifying that the exercise of the position as Governor in Charge”, does not disqualify the title of person in charge but instead emphasizes it. The spirit of the law is to limit the right to be elected when the candidate has illegally taken a material advantage over others.
Does Yolanda Wong have no material advantage over Fernando Araújo, William Garcia, Adelina Covo, William Dau Chamatt, Germán Viana, Nabil Báladi, Armando Córdoba, Wilman Herrera Imitola, Claudia Fadul, Jaime Hernández Amín, Sergio Londoño Zurek and Rosmery Torres ? Of course he does.
Having directly hired $ 81 billion, appointed secretaries who are still in office and transcendental decisions on the boards of Water of Cartagena and other entities of the District, constitute a material but illegal advantage.
If the presentation of Judge Pérez Casas is accepted by a majority, I will present a guardianship action to protect my fundamental right to due process. In this way we would avoid irremediable damage to Cartagena. The same happened with Fifth War, whose registration approved by the CNE, was declared void and, therefore, its election, by the State Council. Fifth enrolled disabled. And we Cartagena know the consequences.