The second edition of the Jaguar Law will also enter the fourth court for consultation: What are the new legal doubts?

The government submitted a new version of the text (Legislative Document 24,467) at the end of July last year. The first version of the initiative suffered a serious setback in Chamber IV itselfin which the magistrate determined that there were constitutional defects in four of the nine clauses to which the court had referred at first instance in its previous analysis of the feasibility of submitting the document for public consultation.

Visited: The Jaguar Law has lost two of its four legs: What changes have been made to the new referendum plan?

President Rodrigo Chavez described the new version of the project as a legally “armored” text. However, the TSE is now asking the judges about the legality of three of its five enduring articles. Two of the figures were not consulted in the first instance, and the remaining one had already passed the court’s review but was reformed in the new version initiative promoted by the executive branch.

What new doubts does the government’s plan raise that need to be screened in the IV room? That’s what the matter is.

consult

After the first constitutionality consultation on the Jaguar Bill, the government decided to propose a new version that deleted four of the original nine clauses and amended one.

Now, the TSE has decided to consult a magistrate on the legality of three of the remaining five numbers, including the ones already examined in the first instance, while the government decided to change only part of them.

Here are the query-by-query details:

Article 2 of the bill corresponds to the amendment of article 12 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (7,428), concerning the powers of this institution to monitor the use of public funds.

Initially, the government’s move was to stipulate that CGRs could not “replace, contain, interfere with, command, explain, warn, remember, or recommend” Matters relating exclusively to public administration; neither “Pre-assess” your administration.

Likewise, he proposed Repeal the part of the current regulations concerning the obligation of public institutions to comply with the regulations issued by the CGR.

During the first consultation on this article, the judges of the Fourth Chamber confirmed that the reform was completely unconstitutional, except for two words: the verbs “replace” and “cover”. According to them, these verbs are not a big deal “as long as the Comptroller General of the Republic does not exercise the functions of the current government”.

Despite this ruling, the government chose to retain the provision in the Jaguar Act 2.0, albeit with some modifications. It retains the two verbs mentioned by the court and removes the prohibition on CGR assessments prior to administrative proceedings. However, Maintains the elimination of the obligation to comply with the CGR directives and orders within its jurisdiction, over and above other provisions of taxable entities that object to it.

The Tokyo Stock Exchange has raised questions about this in new consultations with the Constitutional Court.

“It is doubtful whether the aforementioned wording of item 2 of Act No. 24,467, which in its current formulation has not yet been subjected to constitutional review, would lead to the implicit repeal of the remaining provisions of article 12 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic,” he said.

Article 4 of the new Jaguar Act aims to reform Article 67 of the General Public Procurement Act (9,986), which deals with special contracting procedures related to the purchase and lease of real estate.

Among other amendments, the initiative would allow leases of up to 30 years; purchases or leases of buildings “to be built, under construction or already built”; “design, construction and construction services” for a project could also be purchased through a special procedure (different from open bidding); and “leasing of assets to be built, under construction or already built” could even apply to public land.

According to the government, this change Will allow projects like Ciudad Gobierno to proceed unhinderedHowever, the Audit Office insisted that the amendment “It will open the possibility of developing public works (design and construction) indiscriminately, even on state land” without going through the ordinary tendering or competition procedures and their respective controls..

In relation to this article, the TSE put to the Constitutional Court the question of whether the proposed change would imply an unjustified alteration of the public procurement model or, on the contrary, would simply invoke one of the exceptions defined by constitutional jurisprudence as legitimate.

Finally, the court also questioned Section 5 of the bill pushed by the executive branch.

This section proposes to amend Article 5 bis of the Japdeva Organic Law (3,091) so that the entity can Self-regulation of the terms and conditions of a 50-year-old public-private alliance “Development of infrastructure, business, research, technology development, provision of services and any other activities” related to its capabilities.

The CGR said this meant there were illegal exceptions to the constitutional tendering process, so the TSE asked the magistrate to issue a ruling.

path

The Government of the Republic has expressed its intention to promote the Jaguar Law through a referendum, a type of popular consultative legislation that allows for two different routes: the legislative route, through a vote of a majority of deputies; the civic route, through the collection of signatures from 5% of the electoral roll.

For this last procedure, the government received the support of two citizens, including Edgar Espinosa, husband of Representative Pilar Cisneros, who initiated the procedure to start collecting signatures before the TSE.

The TSE’s consultations with the Constitutional Court are entirely consistent with the second route, which is moving faster than Congress.

The Court consulted the Fourth Chamber on the matter to determine whether the reform was legally feasible, which could then authorize the collection of signatures.

President Rodrigo Chávez and Laura Fernández, the presidency minister and interim head of the Planning Ministry (Mideplán), defended the legality of the new version of the project. The president said the new wording was “perfect” after the Fourth Chamber’s first ruling on the first version of the text.

Although the Constitutional Court has not yet referred to most of the provisions of the new version of the project and the full solution of the first version has not yet been implemented, the executive branch’s defense of the legality of the text is strong. Even the first four analytical articles of this article can be consulted.

So far, the House has only released the “therefore” (i.e. conclusion) of its resolution, but the final wording of the ruling and its explanation remain to be known.

Despite the lack of information, President Chavez insisted the text now no longer had a legal loophole. But the fourth chamber will have the final say.