From heaven to hell INVESTITURE LOST
POVEDA ALBERTO PERDOMO PERDOMO
GUILLERMO POVEDA
SUMMARY: 1. Introduction 2. Legal nature of the loss of investiture, 3. Background 4. Standards for the loss of endowment, 5. Causes that lead to the loss of the inauguration of the congress, 6. Loss of the investiture of the members, council and aldermen, 7. Processing of the loss of endowment; 8. Appeals against sentence; 9. Is it a penalty the sentence decreed the loss of endowment?; 10. The "political death" as a result of the loss of endowment, 11. Congressmen who have lost their investiture, 12. Huila councilors who have lost the endowment. 13. The purpose of reform to the action of loss of investment, 14. Conclusions 15. Bibliography
1 PRESENTATION
One of the recurring themes in the national news as well as local news has to do with the sentences uttered judicial corporations administrative litigation in cases of loss of investment, a figure which has served to draw the political scene for many characters, from simple to some lofty council chairman of the Accusations Committee of the House of Representatives.
action endowment loss, legal concept embodied in the Constitution of 1991, is intended to cause a loss of dignity for which he was elected a person in a Public Corporation - Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) assemblies, councils and local administrative boards -.
all know the importance of national, regional or local level and the important role played by persons elected to the various corporations. Such status gives them influence and power. The loss of investment means that in a moment down from heaven to hell itself, questioning not only ethical but also legal dispossession of the quality he holds.
We want to present this research to the readers of ALE-KUMA Law Review, in order to let them know the extent of the figure, the rules that it guarantees the causes that give rise to it, the requirements to be fulfilled to file a complaint, what action is forward and the lists of parliamentary and municipal councilors desinvestidos Huila. As this is a preliminary approach subject to the future we hope to complement this research.
2 LEGAL NATURE OF THE LOSS OF
INVESTITURE loss credential is a figure created by the 1991 Constitution. Its purpose is to dignify the position of congressman, congressman, councilman and mayor, enhance their responsibilities and functions, with the possibility that, given the failure of the system of incompatibilities, disqualifications or the appearance of conflict of interest by themselves, as well as breach of the duties incident to the office, they can punish those who engage in the violation of the grounds provided for the loss of the endowment.
The main purpose of this figure is to help in the purification of the administration and ensure transparency in governance. It has the characteristics of a disciplinary reproach and meets or is equivalent to the penalty of dismissal, inasmuch as the citizens who are popularly elected to public corporations are not subject to administrative hierarchical system that encompasses the generality of public servants is , they have no superiors who may exercise disciplinary powers over them, what motivates the implementation of special arrangements for the removal from office, which is the loss of the endowment.
The Constitutional Court states that "special zeal in establishing the Constituent Assembly a set of rules under which shall be exercised by Congressman is explained not only by the intrinsic importance of Congress in the rule of law but by significance of the inauguration of whom, chosen at the polls to integrate the Legislative Branch has in his head the representation of the people.
"These standards meet the needs of ensuring the basic tasks of the institution and to preserve the respectability of those who composed, thanks to healthy performance of delicate tasks entrusted to them.
"Among the objectives pursued by this legislation is to guarantee the governed people who have been awarded such high dignity not abuse their power, used to achieve their personal ends, because the activity assigned to them must be exclusively to serve the public good "( Judgement C-497/94 MPJG Hernández Galindo).
should be noted that although the loss of endowment and electoral trial ends with the nullification of the election of a congressman, have some commonalities, the two actions are quite distinct. The loss of investment in the fund involves a penalty for conduct undertaken by the person of Congressman depriving it of that status as a was once owned by him, the electoral trial step it aims to define whether the choice and condition of Congressman are legitimate, or if on the contrary, if there are grounds for annulment is illegitimate (see Case C-507/94, MP Mejia Arango). 3 BACKGROUND
The Constitutional Court in Case C-319/94 (Hernando Herrera Vergara MP) made a clear overview of the history of the loss of endowment and the various proposals that were submitted for consideration by the Assembly Constituent important. He begins by saying that the High Corporation, is "indisputable that one of the most important reforms made by the Constituent Assembly of 1991 related to the Congress, was the creation of the institution of the loss of investiture, as enshrined in Article 183 of the Constitution, in order to dignify the position of Congressman, praise their responsibilities and functions, with the possibility that, faced with the failure of the system of incompatibilities, disqualifications or the appearance of conflict of interest by themselves, as well as breach of the duties inherent in the office, who could punish incurred in violation of the grounds set forth in that provision with the loss of investiture, without this decision depended of a previous court ruling.
"Indeed, the National Constituent Assembly in the issue began to be discussed at the Third Committee, with original paper Constituent Luis Guillermo Nieto Roa. Then discussed on the basis of the draft presented by the Commission appointed as rapporteur group, composed of delegated Alfonso Palacios Rudas, Hernando Yepes Arcila, Alvaro Echeverry Uruburu, Antonio Galán and others, as recorded in the official means of publication of the Assembly.
"The general approach of the proponents of the initiative was based on the highest level which is the category of Congressman. Hence, the consequences of violation of the duties, functions and responsibilities of the position should be matched with an equally drastic sanction. The joint subcommittee to the proposal, considering the regulation of the institution intended, therefore, recover the prestige of the Congress.
"The criterion of the committee was unanimous in that the regime of disabilities, incompatibilities and conflicts of interest would be incomplete and it would be inane if not establish the loss of the endowment as condign punishment. It was also the unanimous opinion of the committee that, given the high position of Congressman, violation of this regime could not lead to a sanction less than the loss of the endowment. Thus it was proposed by it, with the requirement that the law established a summary procedure by which the Supreme Court decided in a period not exceeding twenty days.
"Within the National Constituent Assembly the central dispute revolved around which the Corporation to assign jurisdiction to hear the loss of endowment process.
"In this regard had three theses:
" The first argued that the Supreme Court should be the corporation responsible for hearing loss of investiture, as they claimed its proponents, strictly speaking it was a criminal case unless at least equivalent to a prosecution.
"Defenders of the second view were in favor of knowledge of the loss of the endowment is allocated to the Constitutional Court, as proposed at the time the National Government and the Constituent Echeverry Uruburu.
"One last stream because the competition tended for the Council of State and that, in view of its adherents, the loss of the endowment is administrative in nature. For supporters of this alternative was not appropriate for the Constitutional Court knew of the loss of the endowment, since the formation of such a high corporation was given the choice to conduct the Senate. Thus, they argued, ensured greater independence and impartiality in the trial if instructed the Council of State, Corporation not dependent on the integration of the Congress.
"Constituents which supported this thesis argued further that the loss of investiture, as Congressman sanctions that fail to meet its obligations or incurring a certain offenses, is essentially a disciplinary process which the Council should know State, howsoever the Corporation knows of electoral demands. This was the proposal finally received and this was contained in Articles 183 and 184 of the Constitution.
"about it should be noted also that the constitutional loss of the inauguration of the Congress, is the background of the Legislative Act No. 1 of 1979. Indeed, it was the constitutional reform of 1979 which introduced for the first time in the country the loss of the endowment, and saw that it would have authority to order the State Council. "
In that article 13 of Legislative Act No. 1 of 1979, was seen as causal it entailed the loss of the endowment, the violation of rules de incompatibilidades e inhabilidades y el surgimiento de conflicto de interés; igualmente, se preveía que la inasistencia injustificada daría lugar a esta sanción. En la normatividad de 1991 se agrega las causales configuradas por la indebida destinación de dineros públicos y el tráfico de influencias debidamente comprobado.
4 NORMAS REGLAMENTARIAS DE LA PÉRDIDA DE INVESTIDURA
La pérdida de investidura nace en la Carta Política y tiene varios desarrollos legales.
Mención expresa de ella encontramos en artículos 110, 133, 179, 183, 184, 237, 261 y 291 de la Constitución Política de Colombia.
Así mismo, los siguientes textos laws dealing with it:
Law 5 of 1992 (Regulatory Congress and establishes rules on the loss of investiture of members);
Law 136 of 1994 (regulates the loss of investiture of the council);
Law 144 1994 (establishing the rules governing the procedure should take);
Act 200 of 1995 (Article 32 notes that Article 25 serious offenses result in loss of investment and establishes disabilities, incompatibilities and prohibitions).
Act 446 of 1997 (Notes jurisdiction to hear the loss of endowment action against congressmen and councilors and judicial review against them - arts. 08/10/1933 and 39-4 -)
Act 617 of 2000 (Set devoted disqualifications and incompatibilities and loss rules of the investiture of the members, councilors and mayors).
Act 734 of 2002 (Reform of Act 200 of 1995. Consagra disabilities, incompatibilities and prohibitions)
The application of these laws must meet minimum security rules, including the principle of legality. This is how it is that grounds for loss of investment do not apply retroactively to the date of enactment of various laws. That is why, for example, Members will only be subject to loss of investiture by facts to arrive at present from the effective date of Act 617 of 2000, the events that had led to disinvestment but they have occurred and ceased prior to the issuance of the Act shall not be taken into account by the Courts to declare the "political death."
5 CAUSES LEADING TO THE LOSS OF CONGRESS
INVESTITURE
Grounds endowment loss applicable to members of Congress and established by the constituent are:
5.1 Violation of the rules of disabilities
The disqualifications are those circumstances created by the Constitution or the law that hinder or prevent a person from being elected or appointed in public office, and in some cases, prevent the exercise of employment to those that are linked to the service, and are primarily intended to achieve the moral, fitness, integrity and impartiality of those who will be entering or already hold public jobs ( CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, ss C-546/93, C-147/98 MP MP Gaviria Díaz Martínez and Caballero).
constitute grounds for disqualification, in the terms of Article 179 of the Constitution, the following: 1). Have been sentenced to deprivation of liberty for committing crime, except for political crimes and negligence, 2 º). Having served as a public servant within 12 months prior to the election in the same constituency, 3 º). Have done business or contracts with public or if any managed on behalf of others, or have been legal representative of entities that administer taxes or fiscal, within 6 months prior to the election in the same constituency, 4 º). Have lost their investiture, 5 º). Having ties to family or authorities exercising civil or political authority in the same constituency, 6). Having relationship or links with people who appear on lists of the same party, in the same constituency, 7 º). Have dual citizenship, except Colombians by birth, 8 º). Be elected for more than a corporation; 9). The dismissal unfit to be elected to Congress.
5.2 Violation of
incompatibilities incompatibilities are all acts that can not perform or execute the Congress during the performance of their duties (Act 5 of 1992, Article 281). The incompatibility involves a prohibition against a holder of public office who, by that fact, it is precluded from dealing with certain activities or exercise, simultaneously, the powers of the role and for other office or employment, in guard best interests may be affected by undue accumulation of tasks or a confluence of interests and able to reconcile little, if anything, to affect the impartiality and independence that should guide the actions of those who exercise authority on behalf of the State ( Constitutional Court, s. C-181/97, MP Morón Díaz).
incompatibilities highlighted in the Article 180 of the Constitution: 1). Hold office or public or private employment, 2 º). Manage on their own behalf or that of another business before public or to people that administer taxes, to be guardians of them, enter into contracts on its own or through another person contracts with them; 3 º). Being a member of boards or boards of directors of decentralized entities at any level, 4 º). Contracts or make arrangements with private law to administer, manage or invest public funds or are government contractors or grantees thereof.
5.3 Violation of the rules of conflict of interest
Conflict of interest refers to situations of both moral and economic order, which inhibit the congressman to participate in the processing of matters under consideration, while leaving the control law of the item (Constitution, Article 182).
The Organic Law of Congress (5 th, 1992, article 286), states the fundamental principle of conflict of interest: Applications: Any member of Congress, where there is direct interest in the decision because it affects in any way, or your spouse or permanent companion, or any of his relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or second degree or first civil, or your partner or partners in law or fact, shall be declared disqualified from participating in discussions and voting on.
Subsequently, Act 144 of 1994, Article 16, is defined as follows the conflict of interests: Members of Congress that within the year immediately preceding the election have served paid to unions private law or persons on whose business interests or acts that directly affect the study of Congress are, give notice in writing to the board of the appropriate body to decide whether Congress alluded to refrain from participating in the voting process and such acts.
Conflict of interest is presented as a transgression of the principles of justice and the common good which should come as lawmakers in their actions, ideals imposed by the Constitution, Article 133. When Congressman pursuing a personal benefit and not the common good order departs from the popular and distorts the democratic nature has legislative function, as the source of your choice (Council of State Board of Consultation and Civil Service, the concept of May 27, 1999, MPC Hoyos Salazar).
however, has insisted that there is no proper legal regime of conflict of interests of members of Congress to regulate explicitly, clearly and completely the subject, but to do a systematic study of some constitutional and legal norms to determine whether in response to a particular bill, such a conflict occurs for one or several members of Congress, and cited laws does not exhaust the subject (Council of State Advisory Board and Civil Service, concept of 27 May 1999, establishment 1191 MPC Hoyos Salazar).
The conflict of interest arises or occurs when, by law, there is direct interest in the decision because it somehow affects the congressman, the spouse or permanent companion, or any of his relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or second degree or first civil, or your partner or partners in law or fact. It is a subjective reason that becomes part Congressman and disables it to approach the process of making legislative or policy decisions (vote or debate in legislative process in which you are interested) with equanimity, the balance and unselfishness that moral standard and the legal standard required; conflict arises automatically and your return is imperative. For not acting in violation of rules of conflict of interests, Congress should make known to the respective chamber moral situations or economic nature that the disabled to participate in the disposition of matters submitted to it, on pain of losing endowment. 5.4 Undue
of public funds
destination Undue ago regarding the incorrect, illegal or unfair determination that something is applied to a purpose for which it was intended, and the term public money must be understood in its technical sense as a means Payment and measure of value, currency, relative to revenue.
This ground of loss of the endowment is paralleled in the field of criminal responsibility in the crime of embezzlement (Penal Code, Article 133 et seq.)
The Congress through Act 5 of 1992, arts. 296 paragraph 2 and 297, stated that requiring prior judicial pronouncement - criminal conviction - that stated the misuse of public funds and influence peddling, to proceed the loss of investiture decree, but that requirement was declared unconstitutional by Constitutional Court (Judgement C-319/94 MPH Herrera Vergara).
Trading in influence
5.5
duly recorded consists of the sanction to be imposed on the congressman who invokes influences, real or simulated, in order to gain the favor of a witness, public servant or administrative agency or corporation court is hearing or is to try a case.
is also the cause of loss of investiture in a parallel criminal liability, since it is a crime under the influence-peddling labeled type (C. Penal, Article 147 et seq.)
should be emphasized that the jurisprudence developed by the State Council about this cause, does not allow for differences between it and what is legal dogmatics criminal offense.
5.6 Absence from six (6) plenary meetings in which bills are voted on legislation and laws or censure motions in the same period, provided that no force majeure ".
This is a strict causal interpretation of which is very simple. Sufficient to establish the absence of Congressman six (6) sessions that mentioned the rule, so that his statement has led to judicial review. 5.7 In
not take possession within 8 days following the installation of the cameras, or the date on which they were called to take possession, if not bound by force majeure.
In this causal requires objective confirmation of the lack of possession of the Congress within the deadline, but provided that this did not happen by force majeure. A force majeure clear the sequestration is chosen, as in the case of Ms. Gloria Polanco de Lozada, elected House Representative for the period 2002-2006, who at the time of writing this work is plagiarized.
5.8 The need for money to parties, movements or candidates
The State Council has understood that the list of grounds for loss of investiture is added when caught by the prohibition of Article 110 of the Constitution, which reads that "prohibits who perform public functions make any contributions to political parties, movements or candidates, or induce others to do so, except as provided by law. The failure of either of these prohibitions shall be grounds for removal from office or loss of the endowment. "
INVESTITURE
6 LOST MEMBERS, town councilors and aldermen
Law 136 of 1994, Article 55 governs the loss of inauguration of the council, but that rule was amended by Act 617 of 2000 Article 48, which establishes the grounds for loss of investiture of deputies, municipal and district councilors and members of local boards, They are as follows: 6.1 By
violation of incompatibilities or the rules of conflict of interest. There will be no conflict of interest when they try to consider matters affecting deputy alderman or equal to those of the general public.
The Act 617 of 2000 strangely failed to point out that the disabilities were a cause of loss for the investiture investiture, councilors and aldermen, as prima facie it seems that these members of corporations do not lose their endowments when an cause of disability.
However, in respect of Members should be noted that the Constituent Assembly - Article 299, inc. 2 - said his investiture loss regimen could not be less demanding than that of the congressmen, why should understand that all disability that constitute grounds for loss of investiture for Congress, also apply to Members .
6.2 In the absence in the same session to five (5) committee or plenary meetings in which bills are voted ordinance or agreement, as appropriate. This ground will not apply when "force majeure. 6.3 The
not take office within three (3) days from the date of installation of the assemblies or councils, depending on case, or the date on which they were called to take office. This ground will not apply when "force majeure. 6.4 On
of public funds improperly
6.5 In certifiable peddling
6.6 For any other reason explicitly provided for by law
This is in itself of our messy legal system, where the proliferation of standards prevents in a single statute regulating the matter fully.
7 STEP FOR LOSS OF INVESTITURE
7.1 The applicant subject
The process of loss of the endowment is initiated when a citizen, the Attorney General's Office or the Congress, requesting the State Council - in the cases referred to Senators and Representatives to the House - or the appropriate Administrative Tribunal - where it is, councilors and aldermen - endowment to leave without a member of a corporation for engaging in one of the reasons specified in the constitution or the law.
In this action, as in all other matters pending before the court of administrative litigation, we see the character of "entreaty" that is the same. Therefore, in no case can the administrative tribunals initiate an investment loss.
7.2 Requirements of
demand
The application must meet the following requirements:
a) Full name, identity and address of the questioner, not to be a lawyer, "
b) Name of Congressman, deputy mayor and alderman or accreditation issued by the national electoral organization;
c) Invocation of the cause for which is claimed loss of the endowment and its proper explanation;
d) Application of evidence, if any, and
e) Address of where the applicant will receive notifications as appropriate.
With the demand must be accompanied by the largest amount of evidence may show that the defendant committed the alleged causal, since the speed with which they handled this action does not give much room for evidential activity within the process. Admission
7.3
demand judicial authority accepts the request if it meets the above requirements. It is called the defendant to answer the demand if it does. Are enacted to practice tests and quoted the hearing, which may involve the complainant, the prosecutor and the defendant. After this is due in sentencing. Deadline 7.4
sentencing
The Constitution mandates that all this process should be fulfilled within 20 days when it comes to processes against members of Congress, becoming theoretically in a stock whose decision is celerísima, second only to habeas corpus and protection. However, and unfortunately, the State Council in several months is exceeding that term, which makes a mockery of the clear and unequivocal mandate of the Constituent.
The Act 617 of 2000, Article 48, says the process of loss of investiture, councilors and mayors should take within 45 days. Should be recorded in the Administrative Court of Huila, despite its enormous congestion, usually meets that term.
8. APPEALS AGAINST SENTENCE
The Colombian Constitution of 1991 stipulates in Article 31, which in our legal order governing the principle of double jeopardy, unless legal exceptions. This generally means that any judicial decision may be subject to appeal, or appeal, "so that a different officer who utters the initial decision, review and assess, uttering a new order in which they support or withdraw it initially decided. Thus, if a prosecutor uttered half order against a person, it has the possibility of appeal, and another prosecutor who will review the decision and shall if confirmed, to be both lawful by the factual and legal or otherwise, if revoked. Judgments
investiture loss concern of Congress and which are dictated by the State Council, there is no appeal. This is one of the exceptions of Article 31 itself is cited, which also occurs in criminal proceedings being conducted by the Supreme Court against the Congress, events in which there is no appeal.
Judgments investment loss that affects Congress only allowed the use of special review special The possibility of such an action does not prevent compliance failure. This means nothing stops the execution of a sentence of loss of investment.
For the judgments of administrative tribunals that deal with MPs, councilors and aldermen, there is the possibility of appeal before the State Council, Administrative Disputes Chamber, First Section, under the terms of the Act 617 of 2000, Article 48 Paragraph 2. Before the rule of law cited discussed the possibility to access any appeal against the decision, accepted by the jurisprudence of the State Council itself could be the appeal (eg, process 2000-398501 June 14 2001, MP Urueta Ayola, action endowment loss against Eneida Hernandez Avila).
9 PUNISHMENT IS A SENTENCE THAT ENACTED THE LOSS OF INVESTITURE?
Given the dignity of the affected and the consequences of a decision of disinvestment, we must consider that the declaration of loss of endowment is an ethical and political sanctions, for its content is a disciplinary mechanism, and because of the competent authority is jurisdictional.
As stated by the Constitutional Court (Case C-319/94), by virtue of their nature and the purposes for which it stands, the loss of the endowment is a real political liability trial ends with the imposition of a sanction of a judicial nature, type of transgression punishable disciplinary code of conduct that Congress spotless, councilors and mayors should be observed because of the invaluable social and political value of the endowment they hold.
constitutional rules regarding the loss of the endowment are eminently ethical. Seek to preserve the dignity of the congressman and, although relating to conduct that would be covered by criminal law and its object is not to impose criminal sanctions, but to punish the breach of discipline imposed on members of Congress because function played.
In Case C-280/96, was said by the Constitutional Court that the loss of endowment is similar to a disciplinary sanction of dismissal, so it is acceptable that the disciplinary statute (Law 200 of 1995) endowment established by the loss of a major penalty, it is clear that this figure has a disciplinary component. The rule does not ignore the inherent jurisdiction of the State Council in relation to the Congress (legislators, councilors and mayors), and there is no reason that the law governing the loss of investiture as a punishment for the other members of the public corporations because it is a figure discipline that is "comparable in its impact and severity, the dismissal of public officials."
10 LA "political death" RESULTING FROM LOSS OF INVESTITURE
The declaration of loss of investment creates what is called "political death", as the person receiving this penalty may not be chosen by election to any office or public corporation.
This means, for example, if a councilman lost his inauguration, is for life or for life disqualified from being elected mayor, governor, senator, representative, congressman, councilman and mayor.
On the other hand, if it is true that the desinvestido can hold public office, the nominator would bear the enormous burden that means you designate an official to a person who for ethical reasons was left out of corporate public service.
When the loss of endowment is enacted and becomes final during the respective constitutional period for which he was elected a member of a corporation, it must give away the position.
Likewise, when the loss of investiture was decreed for a period prior to that currently exercised by the elected, the ruling also has effects on the latter.
If the loss of the endowment is enacted and becomes final before the National Electoral Council made the declaration of the elections and issue the appropriate credentials, the election authority must abstain from giving any credential who is the subject of disability above, since the mandate of Article 4 of the constitution is peremptory (Case T-193/95, MP Gaviria Díaz).
A final hypothesis is that the decision of the State Council is firm, once the ballots, declared the election and handed the card, you must apply the disability in place for such acts.
11 CONGRESIST AS YOU HAVE LOST THE
INVESTITURE
for the various causes of disinvestment, desde la puesta en funcionamiento del mecanismo en 1993 y hasta el 14 de mayo de 2002, el Consejo de Estado ha decretado las siguientes pérdidas de investidura de parlamentarios:
1). SAMUEL ALBERTO ESCRUCERÍA MANZI: (Senador Liberal) Perdió su investidura por tener una condena judicial en su contra. El Consejo de Estado lo despojó de su condición de parlamentario mediante sentencia del 8 de septiembre de 1993.
2). JAIRO JOSÉ RUIZ MEDINA: (Representante Liberal-Amazonas) Fue despojado de su investidura el 28 de septiembre de 1993, porque en su calidad de parlamentario gestionó asuntos a su favor como gerente de la Fundación Rafael Uribe Uribe.
3). JOSÉ NAVARRO MOJICA: (Senador Liberal) The State Council sanctioned it because it simultaneously served as a congressman and president of the Free University Consiliatura. Judgement of 4 October 1993.
4). JUAN FERNANDO GÓNGORA ARCINIEGAS: (Representative Liberal) had been convicted of a crime of personal injury in 1977, by the Circuit Criminal Court 25 of Bogota, 18 months in prison. The decision of the State Council took place on October 4, 1993.
5). Alvaro Araujo Noguera (Senator Liberal) On November 30, 1993, the State Council stripped him of his office to exercise in parallel as a senator and as a manager of a private company.
6). CESAR AUGUSTO PEREZ: (Representative) On January 18, 1994, the State Council stripped him of his capacity as Congressman committed a conflict of interest.
7). Leovigildo GUTIERREZ: (Representative Liberal) On 22 February 1994, the State Council stripped him of his office to become a beneficiary of state resources that were drawn on aid quality.
8). PEREZ RAUL ARIZA EMIRO (Representative) was unfit to occupy a seat, having been sentenced to deprivation of liberty for committing the crime of breach of trust, according to decision of the Council of State dated May 17 1994.
9). REGINA DE LISKA BETANCOURT (Independent Senator) On August 18, 1994, the State Council took away because a group led congressional employees to contribute a share of their salary to fund their movement.
10). FELIX SALCEDO Baldión (Senator Liberal) In Case August 24, 1994, engaged in improper conclusion and negotiated contracts on behalf of others, the award of contract to the Electric Interconnection barges SA
11). LOSADA RICAURTE VALDERRAMA: (Senator Liberal) was stripped of his inauguration on September 6, 1994, to act simultaneously on their position of senator, representing a legal foundation that manages state resources.
12). BADILLO ALFONSO URIBE: (Representative) The State Council desinvistió on October 14, 1994, because he sent a memorial to Spain in honor of Father Javier Arjona Surgeon (RIP). He decided to change the official plan and go on vacation to Miami.
13). ESPINOSA GUSTAVO JARAMILLO: (Senator Liberal) Incurred conflict of interest by voting for the so-called "narcomico" because it had a preliminary inquiry against him for the crime of illicit enrichment. The disinvestment was decreed on 12 March 1996.
14). Jattin JOSE FRANCISCO (Senator Liberal) On May 14, 1996 was stripped of his investiture by the case of "narcomico", which violated the rules of conflict of interest.
15). HENRY CUBIDES Olarte (Senator Liberal) On November 14, 1997, the Council of State ruled strip him of his office for violation of incompatibilities, and it signed on as a congressman and majority shareholder of the company Coltanques Ltda two contracts with the state Liquor Factory Antioquia-(Constitution, Article 180-2).
16). RAFAEL HUMBERTO ALFONSO (Representative) lost his inauguration on March 10, 1998, for violating the rules of conflict of interest, since that despite being under investigation for illicit enrichment by the Supreme Court intervened actively in the debates and votes of the Forfeiture Act in 1996.
17). Celia Jimenez OSCAR TAMAYO: (Representative) for violating the rules of disabilities and incompatibilities to intervene as a congressman's vote Corruption Statute in 1995, while under investigation for the crime of embezzlement by the Supreme Court, additionally participated in the vote the Forfeiture Act, still incur the same research ..
18). ALFARO CARLOS ALBERTO OVIEDO (conservative Representative-Quindío) Desinvestido by have missed without just cause more than six (6) Congress plenary sessions in which they discussed and passed bills. The State Council decision was handed down on July 13, 1999.
19). HUMBERTO CAMELO PAVA (conservative Senator.) He lost his inauguration to find that he violated the rules of disabilities and incompatibilities, and a brother officiated apparatus the time of the election as National Commissioner of the TV. Case of February 1, 2000.
20). NORBERTO LUIS GUERRA (conservative Representative) On May 23 2000 lost his investiture by showing that it incurred misuse of public resources destination, building on its status member of the board of the Chamber.
21). CARMONA OCTAVIO SALAZAR: (Representative Liberal) The May 30 2000 lost his investiture by showing that it incurred undue public resource destination, drawing its membership of the board of the Chamber.
22). POMARICO JESUS \u200b\u200bARMANDO RAMOS (Liberal Representative) The June 20, 2000 lost his investiture by showing that it incurred undue public resource destination, drawing its membership of the board of the Chamber.
23). ARIAS EDGAR PEREA: (Senator Liberal) In a split decision of 14 votes to 9, the Council of State decided on 18 July 2000 declaring the loss of the inauguration of this Parliament, when she is guilty in violation of the prohibition imposed on the Congress to hold office or public or private employment-Constitution, Article 180 -.
24). LUIS OCHOA JAVIER BROWN: (Senator) In Case of June 5, 2001, the Council of State said the loss of endowment, to prove that the senator had been convicted for committing a crime in the USA, which disables to perform elected positions.
25). MARIO'S CORNER: (Representative conservative-Bogotá) In a decision of July 17, 2001, the Council State declared disinvestment for influence peddling.
26). SARAVIA DARIO GOMEZ (Representative) Judgement of 8 August 2001. Was applied as a cause of loss of investiture the enshrined in Article 183-4 of the Constitution and Article 296-4 of Act 5 of 1992. Influence peddling and misuse of public funds.
27). Luis Alfonso Hoyos Aristizabal (Independent Senator) for authorizing the payment of wages to an employee of the Legislative Work Unit, being that it remained outside the country.
28). ANCIZAN CARRILLO: (Representative-Tolima) Violated the rules of disabilities as being official of INVIAS accepted the second row in a list to the House of Representatives. The State Council held the view on the review of the disqualifications at the time of the election and is home not only those who tops the list, but the remaining members. Judgement of August 30, 2001.
29). Jaime Lozada Perdomo (Conservative Senator) Judgement of 19 March 2002. Violated the rules of disabilities and incompatibilities and who served as Governor of Huila until 31 December 1997 and enrolled as a candidate for election to the Senate March 1998
30). CANOSSA FRANCISCO (Conservative Representative) Judgement of May 14, 2002. 17 votes 4, for violation of the rules of conflict of interest and to vote the bill approving the new criminal code was being investigated by the Supreme Court.
12 City Council who have lost HUILA INVESTITURE
Since
gave free rein to the exercise of share of loss of investment, have been desinvestidos the next twenty (20) councilors from different municipalities in the department of Huila:
12.1
Elected to the 1995-1997 constitutional period
1). CASTRO BEATRIZ RODRIGUEZ [of Colombia, for violation of rules of disabilities, was convicted of a crime of embezzlement-through Judgement of March 14, 1995];
2). Chavarro ADOLFO CARVAJAL [Agrado, hold public office for-teacher-];
3). MEDINA MARIO MARTINEZ DARIO [San Augustine, hold public office-teacher-];
4). POLANCO FERNANDO CORONADO [Yaguará, hold public office for-teacher-];
5). JUAN CARLOS GOMEZ RUBIANO [Tello, for violation of rules of disabilities-be contractor of the municipality];
6). EMILIANO PASTRANA CROWE [from Palermo, for violation of incompatibilities-litigate before the Department of Justice "];
7). ALVARO Casallas PERDOMO [Yaguará, for violation of rules of disabilities-contract with state-];
8). ALVARO FIGUEROA LUIS OVIEDO [de La Plata, for violation of rules of disabilities-contract with the city-];
9). GRAFF RÓMULO SPAIN [Agrado, for violation of rules of conflict of interest, promote, and obtain the municipality's procurement of insurance for council members through the "Company Graffe Cortes y Cia. Ltda Insurance Advisors, Insurance setter which is a member of the council-]. 12.2
Elected to the 1998-2000 constitutional period
10). AMIN Losada [Garzón, by incurred in violation of incompatibilities-advertising company that is hired by the municipality socio-];
11). Clever TERESA DIAZ [Hobo, engaging in conflict of interest, participated in the discussion and approval of an agreement that benefited one of his sons];
12). ADAM RODRIGUEZ JOSE ROJAS [Pitalito, for violating the incompatibilities, to incur the double allocation prohibition on receiving the State];
13). GALINDO APARICIO [Yaguará, for violating the rules on conflict of interest involved in the approval of an agreement that benefited in-law];
14). ANA MARIA ARAUJO [Yaguará violate the rules of conflict of interest when addressing the approval of an agreement that benefited directly];
15). BUENAVENTURA GUILLERMO [Neiva, for violation of incompatibilities because Asovicap contracted with, a legal person receiving state funds];
16). AVILA HERNANDEZ ENEIDA [Hobo, violation of incompatibilities, conflicts of interest and influence peddling, receiving during the years 1999-2000 some municipal funds as director of Children's Home "Leonardo Ortiz Cleves," having participated in his capacity as alderman in the discussion and approval of municipal budgets of these years.] 12.3
Elected to the 2001-2003 constitutional period
17). ANTONIO MIGUEL PERDOMO LYNX [Neiva, for engaging in the grounds of the State to receive double compensation, as well as council fees accrued salary as a full professor at the University Surcolombiana]
18). RUBEN DARIO QUIMBAYA [Giant, to participate in some housing projects that this alleged violation of rules of disabilities and incompatibilities and conflict of interest];
19). ORLANDO GUZMAN MANRIQUE [Neiva, for engaging in the grounds of violation of incompatibilities, and simultaneously with the office of councilman played the full-time professor at the University Surcolombiana also receiving double compensation, 22/10/2001]
20). JAIRO ANTONIO GARCÍA RIAÑO [Pitalito, for engaging in the grounds of violation of incompatibilities, and simultaneously with the office of councilman played the full-time professor of the College Department of Pitalito, also receiving double compensation, 02/05/1930 ].
For the last two decisions at present takes the appeal to the State Council.
13 PURPOSES ACTION REFORM TO LOSS OF INVESTITURE
Several new institutions that came into force in the Colombian legal arena from the enactment of the 1991 Constitution have been severely criticized even been attempted in some cases distorting them. It has been alleged against legal action and the loss of investiture.
to be accepted in a society in which the double standard and the permanent set of public servants to get advantage to institutions, urgently requires the existence of stringent punitive system - established all the procedural safeguards - to meet a preventive role. Therefore, any action to reform the investment loss will only be acceptable on average do more demanding ethical regime of high office who are representing the company in various public corporations. Allow
reduce the ethical requirement regime, imposing processing requirements to the demands of investment loss, accept the imposition of extensive procedural terms, etc., Means once again pay the ground for the corruption and the corrupt, such and as promoted again by way of 'monkey' in the Bill to the Attorney General's Office, which extended the second debate in the House of Representatives and could be approved later this year.
14
CONCLUSIONS From the above we reached the following conclusions:
1. The action of loss of standing in a legal instrument straightened impose disciplinary sanctions on members of public corporations in their actions that go beyond the minimum legal ethics.
2. A good number of people elected to various public corporations, public representation, have been cast aside in the national political stage, having been found engaging in actions that are typical of investment loss.
3. Legal instruments as the action of loss of investiture are a bastion of society against corrupt politicians, so its existence must be defended and move aimed to weaken all should be subject to rejection.
15 Bibliography The literature on the figure is not very neat. We note the texts covering the same and have been taken into account in the preparation of this essay.
Camargo, Pedro Pablo. Of constitutional and administrative litigation. Editorial Leyer, Santafé Bogotá, 1999.
Hernández Enríquez, Eduardo Alier. The loss of investiture of congressmen and councilors. Rodríguez Quito Editores, Bogotá, Bogotá, 1998.
POVEDA PERDOMO, Alberto. Constitutional actions: study materials. Unpublished, Neiva, 2001. -----
corruption and the regime. Editorial Professional Bookstore (2 nd edition), Bogota, 2000. ----- Loss
inauguration. Diario del Huila, Neiva, 2000.
Neiva, on the eve of San Pedro, 2002.
ALBERTO PERDOMO POVEDA (alpoveda@hotmail.com). Advocate of the Universidad del Cauca (1985), doctoral studies at the University of Salamanca (1995-1997). Director of the Research Center of the Cooperative University of Colombia, Neiva, and Professor of Criminal Law and Constitutional Actions in the same university. GUILLERMO
POVEDA PERDOMO. Advocate of the Universidad del Cauca (1978), studies of specialization in Administrative Law, Commercial Law and the Mining and Energy. Professor of Civil Procedural Law courses and Introduction to Law at the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Neiva.
0 comments:
Post a Comment