The Full Court rejected the possibility of issuing an optional consultation to the Constitutional Chamber to clarify some concerns about Bill 20,580, popularly known as the tax reform. That decision was made with 14 favorable votes during the session held on Monday.
The discussion took place after a petition last week by the Gremial Front of the Judiciary, who raised to Fernando Cruz, president of the Supreme Court of Justice, the need to clarify specific aspects.
What were the doubts of the Gremial Front?
-If the project, with opposition from the Full Court, can be processed through the fast track.
-If the project should have been published in La Gaceta before being submitted to the first reading.
-If the opportunity to consult the effect on the Judiciary, according to the Article of the Constitutional Chamber, was before or after the first reading.
-If there were substantial defects in the legislative procedure in the processing of the project.
Before the vote, magistrates Iris Rocío Rojas (First Chamber) and Jesús Ramírez (Third Chamber) took the floor to indicate that a constitutionality inquiry was not necessary, assessing that the Plenary Court had already expressed its position on the project on October 15th.
This position was supported by President Cruz, who explained that it is politically “unfeasible” to send a constitutional consultation on the project now.
The hierarch was clear that the elements on the table – linked to the bill – are enough to raise a constitutionality consultation, however it is not the most appropriate “political” move.
The project was approved in the first reading on October 5th through the fast track (known as 208 bis) with 35 votes in favor. However, there are legal and constitutional doubts about the need for the text to be endorsed by a qualified majority (more than 38 votes). A qualified majority is necessary if the reform is considered to have an impact, for example, on the operation of the Judicial Branch or the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE).
With this panorama, the Constitutional Chamber will have to clarify -by means of a constitutional consultation- whether there were procedural defects in the process of the project through the fast track. If so, the text would be forced to return to the first reading to submit it again to a vote, but with the requirement of a qualified majority.