JNJ: Constitutional Council approves reforms to abolish the National Judicial Council | Who voted for and against | These are the changes | Ampé | Renets | Senate | Martha Moyano | Popular Power | | Policy

this Constitutional Committee of the National Assembly The constitutional reform proposal was adopted by a majority vote. National Judicial Council (JNJ) and created the National Judicial College in its place. Senate Power to elect the head of state Office of National Electoral Procedure (ONPE) and National Registry of Identity and Citizenship (Reniec)two of the three organizations that make up the electoral system.

The opinion was discussed at a special meeting Constitutional Councilchaired by legislators Martha Moyano (Popular Power)13 votes in favor, 5 of which were “reserved”; 5 against, 5 abstentions (see figure). The issue was therefore cleared to be heard in plenary session of Congress, the highest level of the meeting, which would require 87 votes from two different legislative bodies, or 66 votes and a referendum.

Also read: JNJ International Observer Group expresses concern over Congress’ “interference”

Through this formula, changes to as many as 13 articles of the political constitution were determined to create the so-called “National Judicial Academy”, which, after its entry into force, will end the functions of the JNJ and the Judicial Authority, according to the text itself.

Watch the debate here:

Mira: Congress maintains ‘freeze’ on nominations to prevent nominations of people convicted of murder, other crimes

According to the proposal, the school would be responsible for the “training” of aspiring judges and prosecutors at the national level, “as well as their selection and subsequent appointment; likewise, their renewal and improvement, as well as their training for the purpose of promotion.”

It was determined that the National Judicial Academy would be composed of a board of trustees, which in turn would be composed of a top judge, a top prosecutor (whether in office or retired), and a member elected by the university president. According to the proposal, the board members “may be removed from office by the Senate for serious reasons.”

Furthermore, in the same reform package, it is proposed that the heads of ONPE and Reniec will now be appointed by the Senate of Congress for a four-year, renewable term, and they may also be removed for serious misconduct. Currently, both are elected by the JNJ.

These are the proposed changes:

During the debate

The meeting lasted just over half an hour. Some lawmakers raised objections, some formal and some substantive, but the committee chair insisted on putting the issue to a vote, and it was passed despite the objections. Legislator Martha Moyano told lawmakers that “some issues must be referred to the organic law, and there are others that can be amended in the plenary itself.”

“I am sure, Mr President, we can now vote on our opinions and when we debate in plenary we can come up with some additional proposals,” He asserted.

Congressman Raimundo Mercado (Cambio Democrático-JP) questioned that the opinion was sent after 10:00 a.m. that day, saying it should have been sent 24 hours in advance. “We need more debate, we don’t want unexpected meetings like we have now,” he said.

His colleague on the bench, Victor Kutipa, expressed the same opinion. In addition, legislator Germán Tacuri (Magisterial Block), who believes that the cost of creating new schools should be analyzed, disagreed, saying that “the amendment of the Constitution is being made as if we were a Constituent Assembly “.

Legislator Patricia Juárez (People Power), for her part, said that the text must clearly provide for an age limit of 70, despite the fact that the age of Supreme Court judges has been raised to 50, in reference to the controversy previously generated with JNJ. She also suggested that the heads of the control bodies of the judiciary and the public ministry be included in the mandated list.

“If we are indeed amending the Constitution and what we want is to create certainty, then without more criteria of interpretation, without the series of arguments that were then put forward by members of the JNJ and their lawyers (…) we might have established an age limit for the appointment of Supreme Court judges.“Juarez said.

In addition, Councillor Adriana Tudela (Avanza País) proposed that the school board could have more members than just the three provided for in the text presented by the president of the committee. “If there are only three members, I think the power of one vote could be too much. I have the same doubts about the need to be a lawyer,” he pointed out.

Despite the objections, the issue was put to a vote.

The Constitutional Council votes as follows:

View

Erick Urbina, a constitutional lawyer, believes that the creation of a school for judges and prosecutors is an excellent proposal because it will not only create careers within the judiciary and the public sector, “but, in addition, it will be able to help more people in their professional growth who are already part of the judicial system.”

“JNJ is basically the same as CNM, what has changed is the way the members are elected (…), but in the end the same thing has happened. Promoting the cause of justice is something that JNJ does not do because it has no jurisdiction, and the Judicial Academy does not do it either. These are important issues, and the school can do it.“He said in the conversation trading.

However, Urbina also expressed concern about the task of electing ONPE and Reniec, which will now fall to the Senate, noting that this will most likely continue to be the school’s responsibility. He also questioned the revocation of the appointments of current JNJ members, noting that these members can ask to have their positions reinstated.

A similar position was expressed by former deputy justice minister Gilmar Andía, who noted that, technically, creating a school is not a bad thing and that it already exists in other countries and has been proven to be effective.

“Technically, in my opinion, while the idea may be good, technically it has a lot of flaws. Obviously, the disappearance of JNJ is an issue with a very important political background. In addition, because what is being said is that Congress is trying to have absolute power” he asked in an interview with this newspaper.

“SWhile this may have been a good idea, they used this good idea as an excuse to make JNJ disappear. This means that, as of today, all disciplinary proceedings that were initiated remain on hold.”, he pointed out.

Lawyer Enrique Ghersi supports the abolition of JNJ. He stressed that judges who do not participate in the political games of the state cannot be “politically elected judges” but “neutral” judges. “I think it is a good move, it is a radical change to the system. (…) Because if you make changes to do more of the same, what is the difference between CNM and JNJ? “Nothing,” he shouted.

Regarding the election of ONPE and Reniec leaders in the Senate, Ghersi said the system of the 79-year constitution should be restored, suppressing the two institutions and reintegrating them into the JNE.

Ernesto Álvarez, former president of the TC, said that this reform “is necessary” because “our model, very similar to that of JNJ and CNM, has reached a new level. In the end, it has actually collapsed “.

However, he said he expected some amendments could be made at the level of the plenary session of Congress, such as expanding the three-member National Judicial Academy board. “Giving too much power to one person. It would be better to have five judges,” he said.

“The failed model means that an entity that has nothing to do with the judges and prosecutors themselves is directing the campaign because of a long-standing suspicion of the judges and prosecutors themselves. That model has failed. What they have to do is be very actively involved in directing their own careers, just like diplomats, sailors and military personnel,” Alvarez said.

The former TC judge also believes that it is right for the Senate to elect the leaders of ONPE and Reniec, as he points out that they must have the “trust” of political actors to fulfill their tasks.

“In this case, it’s better to be open, to be transparent. Let the Senate debate itself, shuffle, and let the one with the most confidence and consensus win. It’s better than realizing later that the open contest was won by a questionable person, someone with issues or very far to the right or far to the right. “It’s better to be transparent,” he asserted.

Constitutional lawyer Natale Aprimo believes that the reforms approved by the committee do not solve the problems in the judicial system. He stressed that the nomination of the best judicial and prosecutorial cadres should be encouraged. “This is more like the same,” he questioned.

From National Judicial Council Meanwhile, the JNJ released a statement insisting that what the Constitutional Council approved affects not only the Council, “but also the judicial system and state institutions.”

“Far from improving the administration of justice for the benefit of the people, the project is a setback because it gives the entire judiciary and the Prosecutor’s Council the power to elect judges and prosecutors respectively, thus running the risk of distorting the justice system”, as has happened in the past, he questioned.