In a ruling without surprises, but in tune with the decision to carve in the current electoral process, the Supreme Court disabled Sergio Unac to run for a third term as governor of San Juan. The Supreme Court -by majority- arrogated the original competence without the case having gone through the highest provincial court and concluded that a new candidacy for Uñac would be contrary to the bases of what they understand by “republicanism” which, they say, implies avoiding perpetuation in power. Beyond the interpretation of the provincial Constitution, the ruling establishes a broad criterion to restrict re-election that seems to leave the latent possibility, or the feint, of extending to other cases brought before the Court itself, such as the indefinite re-election of Gildo Insfran in Formosa.
The Court dealt the first strong blow when it suspended the elections in San Juan and Tucumán with only six days notice, making room for precautionary measures from the opposition and marking the beginning of a offensive against peronism. Furthermore, no one escaped that it was in the middle of the political trial of the supreme judges. The fundamentals anticipated the outcome after admitting the competition, despite the fact that the Proxy Generalwith the signature of Laura MontiHe said they were provincial affairs. This is how it began to rain presentations before the highest court against Insfrán, against the re-election of Buenos Aires mayors and perhaps something else will come. Provincial instances are skipped because they assume that they will have the shelter of the courtiers. “If now everything is original jurisdiction, the rest of the courts make no sense”some judges complain. As is known, in Tucumán the governor Juan Manzur he dropped the candidacy for lieutenant governor before the courtiers resolved the underlying issue. But Uñac resisted and the Court failed.
Now comes the dance of names for the new sanjuanina formula, which was varying in the week. The latest version says that Ruben Unacnational senator and brother of the governor, would be his replacement on the ticket and would remain as vice Andean Christian. It’s not clear yet. Voting would take place in the first half of July.
internal differences
The vote leading the sentence is Horace Rosatti and Juan Carlos Maqueda and declares that “Mr. Sergio Uñac is disqualified by article 175 of the Provincial Constitution to be a candidate for governor for the new term that begins on December 10, 2023.” The duo understand that the provincial norm limits re-elections and that Uñac wanted to cheat. He adds that his candidacy “is based on an interpretation contrary to article 5 of the National Constitution” since it “injures ‘the essence of the republican representative system’ that the provinces are obliged to comply with.” The vote of Carlos Rosenkrantz goes further and points directly to that re-elections should be prohibited because, in his opinion, they carry the risk that the people will no longer be properly represented and democracy will be damaged. Ricardo Lorenzetti it did not pronounce itself, in theory because it did not intervene before in the precautionary measure. The unknown is what he will do in other cases.
The case
The candidacy of Uñac (Vamos San Juan), endorsed by the provincial Electoral Tribunal, had been challenged by Sergio Guillermo Vallejos Minigubernatorial candidate aligned with javier milei within the electoral coalition United for San Juan (Together for Change and allies). the interim attorney edward casal He ruled against the new application and -although his opinion is not binding- it served as the basis for the Court. The supreme ruling establishes that a supposed republican guideline arises from the National Constitution that limits re-elections even though local constitutions do not do so explicitly. Seen in this way, the criterion could be projected to other cases of governors and mayors. The court justifies its interference in provincial autonomy by saying that it is “guarantor of institutional order” and that this implies “ensuring the representative and republican system.”
The San Juan Constitution says that “the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor last four years in the exercise of their functions and can be re-elected consecutively up to two times.” until this year. Both he and the electoral court say that the three-term limit applies only to the same position. But according to Rosatti and Maqueda, that “would mean that Uñac could serve as governor and lieutenant governor consecutively and indefinitely. Thus, a person could hold the same position for one, two, or three consecutive terms and immediately afterwards hold the other position in the pair for one, two, or three consecutive terms, repeating the cycle indefinitely.” For them, this is not authorized by the local Constitution and is anti-republican.
the antecedent
His vote points to similarities with the 2019 ruling where they disqualified Alberto Weretilneck for re-election as governor of Río Negro. They even cite entire paragraphs of that sentence such as the one that highlighted as a “republican virtue” that of “discouraging the possibility of perpetuation in power, by giving meaning to the notion of periodicity of mandates.” “In effect, the validity of the republican system presupposes in a fundamental way the periodicity and renewal of the authorities”they said then and now. Another phrase that they recover: “The political history of Argentina is tragically lavish in institutional experiments that -with less or greater magnitude and success- tried to force -in some cases even making them disappear- the republican principles established by our Constitution”.
In the case of Río Negro there was no precautionary measure but rather a ruling on the merits signed by Rosatti, Maqueda and Lorenzetti. Rosenkrantz had voted dissenting. To do something different with San Juan, he had to justify himself: when issuing the precautionary measure against Uñac, he said that whoever denounced Weretilneck (the current Minister of Justice, Martín Soria) had not shown that he wanted to perpetuate himself in power and that the matter had been resolved by the local Justice.
In the substantive ruling against Uñac, Rosenkrantz was dispatched with a large vote. “There is no doubt that enabling a person to serve for sixteen uninterrupted years in the highest provincial positions imposes an intolerably high cost to the values embodied by the republican system“, he maintained. “The influence – he elaborated – on the composition of the local Judiciary and of the control bodies, the management of public funds, the control of the political and legislative agenda, among other factors, as stated in the previous recitals, translates into a significant concentration of power that erodes the separation of powers and breaks the ‘general conditions of equality’ in electoral competition”.
Readings and reviews
the constitutionalist Andres Gil Dominguez considered that the vote of Rosatti and Maqueda “responds to a federal logic different from the will of the provincial constituent”, while Rosenkrantz “constructs a federalism subject to the imposition of the judicial interpretation of the republican principle”, which would enable him to mess with the provincial constitutions. The jurist, who appeared in court against the re-election of Buenos Aires mayors, had warned before the suspension of elections that the court was doing politics. another specialist, Gustavo Arballo, pointed out that Rosenkrantz’s vote seems dedicated to endorsing the objections to indefinite re-election in Formosa. In the role of translator of the ruling, he pointed out that the Court upholds a concept that is not new: that the National Constitution gives the highest court the “guarantor position” to “interpret local law.”
In a column published in this newspaper, the constitutionalist Raul Gustavo Ferreyra He said that he does not like re-elections because they authorize “the ruling party to use devices and not all, absolutely all citizens, would have equal opportunities to participate.” Despite this, he clarified, “re-election is not contrary to Law. Contrary to Law is not choosing.” If the local constitutions do not expressly prohibit them, he said, re-elections should be allowed because “they do not absolutely overwhelm representativeness or republicanism” and, in any case, If you want to establish a general prohibition, you would have to make a constitutional reform. Ferreyra questioned the ruling against Uñac: re-elections, she said, “once enshrined in the constitutions, even indefinite ones, are a declaration of the citizenship of a province and can only be changed under the same supreme leadership of the people.” “A new judicial doctrine emanating from the majority of the Court’s judges seems to emerge, according to which the republican guideline should discourage the possibility of perpetuation in power, by giving meaning to the notion of periodicity of the mandates.” This, he says, “irreparably damages the sovereignty of the people.”
