From heaven to hell. LOSS OF INVESTITURE 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, councilors and aldermen, 7. Processing of the loss of endowment; 8. Appeals against sentence; 9. Is it a penalty the statement that the loss of investiture decrees?; 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 the judicial bodies of administrative litigation in cases of loss of investiture figure that has served to draw the political scene 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 endowment loss makes in an instant fall from heaven to hell itself, not only ethical but also questioning the 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 to the future we hope to complement this research.
2 LEGAL NATURE OF LOSS
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 of 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 the which must be exercised the office of Congressman is explained not only by the intrinsic importance of Congress in the rule of law but by the significance of the inauguration of whom, chosen at the polls to integrate the Legislative Branch has in his head representation Village.
"These standards meet the needs of ensuring the basic tasks of the institution and to preserve the respectability of those who comprise it, thanks to the healthy performance of delicate tasks entrusted to them.
"Among the objectives sought 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 "(Case 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 that once was 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, in case 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 related 1991 Constituent Congress of the Republic, was the creation of the institution loss of investiture, as enshrined in Article 183 of the Constitution, in order to dignify the position of Congressman, 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 could punish anyone who commits the violation of the grounds set forth in that provision with the loss of the endowment, although this decision depended on a previous court ruling.
"Indeed, the National Constituent Assembly in the subject 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 the violation of the duties, functions and responsibilities of the position should be matched with an equally fine drastically. 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, the violation of this regime could not carry a penalty less than loss of investiture. So this was proposed, with the obligation 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 the endowment, then, proponents argued, strictly speaking it was a dispute if not criminal, at least equivalent to a prosecution.
"The second view advocates favored the learning 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 proposal was well received and was finally contained in Articles 183 and 184 of the Constitution.
"It should be noted the respect, too, that the constitutional loss of the investiture of 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 incompatibilities and disqualifications and the appearance of conflict of interest, also was expected in the absence would unreasonably rise to that penalty. In 1991, the regulations add the grounds set by the undue of public funds and influence peddling duly recorded.
4 REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR LOSS OF INVESTITURE
endowment loss born in the Constitution and has several legal developments.
Express mention of it found in Articles 110, 133, 179, 183, 184, 237, 261 and 291 of the Constitution of Colombia.
Also, the following legal texts deal with it:
Law 5 of 1992 (Regulatory Congress and establishes rules on the loss of their investment miembros);
Ley 136 de 1994 (Regula la pérdida de investidura de los concejales);
Ley 144 de 1994 (Establece las normas que regulan el procedimiento que se debe surtir);
Ley 200 de 1995 (Señala en el artículo 32 que las faltas gravísimas del artículo 25 dan lugar a pérdida de investidura y consagra inhabilidades, incompatibilidades y prohibiciones).
Ley 446 de 1997 (Señala competencias para conocer la acción de pérdida de investidura contra congresistas y concejales y del recurso de revisión contra las mismas --arts. 33-8-10 y 39-4--)
Ley 617 de 2000 (Establece inhabilidades e incompatibilidades y consagra reglas de pérdida 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 investment due to events come to occur from the effect of Act 617 of 2000, the events that had led to disinvestment but which occurred and removed 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 to public office, and in some cases, prevent the exercise of employment to those that are linked to the service, and aim essential 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 the 12 months preceding 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, but the Colombians by birth, 8 º). Be elected for more than a corporation; 9). The removal from office for disabled 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 reconcilable bit and capable in any case, 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 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 or private legal persons on whose interests directly affect business or acts that are the study of Congress, should written notice to the board of the appropriate body to decide whether Congress alluded to refrain from participating in the process and vote on these actions.
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 undermines the democratic character that has the legislative function, as the source of your choice (Council of State Advisory Board and Civil Service, concept of 27 of May 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 filing 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 partner, 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 rule and the statute requires, the 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 the investment. 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 of payment and measure of value, currency, relative to revenue.
This ground of loss of the endowment is its parallel 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). Traffic 5.5
influences
certifiable
consists of imposing sanctions Congressman invoking influences real or simulated, in order to gain the favor of a witness, public servant or judicial administrative agency or corporation who is or has to deal with a question.
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 voting legislation and draft legislation or motions of censure 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. This causal
requires objective confirmation of the lack of possession of the Congress within the deadline, but only if it has not happened 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 "it is prohibited to persons in public office make any contributions to political parties, movements or candidates, or induce others to do so, salvo las excepciones que establezca la ley. El incumplimiento de cualquiera de estas prohibiciones será causal de remoción del cargo o de pérdida de la investidura".
6 PÉRDIDA DE INVESTIDURA DE LOS DIPUTADOS, CONCEJALES Y EDILES
La Ley 136 de 1994, Artículo 55, reguló la pérdida de investidura de los concejales, pero esa norma fue modificada por la Ley 617 de 2000, art 48, en donde se establecen las causales de pérdida de investidura de diputados, concejales municipales y distritales y de miembros de juntas administradoras locales, que son las siguientes:
6.1 Por violación del régimen de incompatibilidades o del régimen de conflicto de intereses. No existirá 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 which is to be understood that all disability that constitute grounds for loss of investiture for Congress, also apply to MPs.
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, as appropriate, or the date on which they were called to take office. This ground will not apply when "force majeure. 6.4 On
undue destination of public money
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 a single statute governing 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, requested the Council of State - in cases referred to Senators and Representatives to the House - or the Administrative Tribunal for - if it is, councilors and mayors - that leaves no endowment to 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
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 council or accredited by the national electoral organization;
c) Invocation of causation which is requested by the loss of the endowment and its proper explanation ;
d) Application of evidence, if any, and
e) Address of place where the applicant will receive notifications as appropriate.
With the demand must be accompanied by the largest possible amount of evidence showing 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 suits against congressmen, theoretically making it one of the celerísima whose decision is only surpassed by the habeas corpus and guardianship. 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. Appeal against the sentence
The Colombian Constitution of 1991 stipulates in Article 31, which in our legal order governing the principle of double jeopardy, with the exceptions Legal. 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 lawful both the factual and legal, or otherwise, if it is revoked. Judgments
loss to deal with congressional investiture and are issued 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 that nothing stops the execution of a sentence of loss of investment.
For the judgments of administrative tribunals that deal with deputies councilors and mayors, there is a possibility of appeal before the State Council, Administrative Disputes Chamber, First Section, under the terms of 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, loss of investiture action 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, culminating in the imposition of a sanction of a judicial nature, type of transgression punishable disciplinary code of conduct irreproachable members of Congress Members councilors and mayors should be observed because of the invaluable social and political development 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 of the role.
In Case C-280/96, was said by the Constitutional Court that the loss of endowment is similar disciplinary action to punish removal, so that "it is unacceptable that the statute of discipline (Law 200 of 1995) set the loss of investment as a principal sanction, 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 disciplinary figure is "comparable in its impact and severity, the dismissal of public officials."
10 LA 'political death' AS 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 that ethical reasons it 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 credential to any person who is under disability above, since the mandate of Article 4 of the Constitution is imperative (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
Of the various causes of disinvestment from the operation of the mechanism in 1993 to 14 May 2002, the State Council has decreed the following losses of approving parliamentary :
1). ALBERTO SAMUEL Escruceria MANZI (Senator Liberal) lost his inauguration to have a judicial sentence against him. The State Council stripped him of his parliamentary status by decision of 8 September 1993.
2). JAIRO JOSE RUIZ MEDINA: (Representative Liberal-Amazonas) was stripped of his inauguration on September 28, 1993, because as an MP managed matters in their favor as manager of the Rafael Uribe Uribe.
3). MOJICA JOSE NAVARRO (Senator Liberal) The State Council sanctioned it because it simultaneously served as a congressman and president of the Free University Consiliatura. Judgement 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, acting simultaneously with Senator status as legal representative of a foundation that administered state resources.
12). BADILLO ALFONSO URIBE: (Representative) The State Council on 14 October desinvistió 1994 because he was sent to a posthumous tribute 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 Ltd., two contracts with the Liquor Factory state of 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 despite being under investigation for illicit enrichment by the Supreme Court intervened actively in the discussions 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 for having failed 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 13 July 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, drawing its membership of the board of the Chamber.
21). CARMONA OCTAVIO SALAZAR: (Representative Liberal) The May 30 2000 lost his investiture by showing que incurrió en destinación indebida de recursos públicos, aprovechando su condición de miembro de la mesa directiva de la Cámara.
22). ARMANDO DE JESÚS POMÁRICO RAMOS: (Representante Liberal) El 20 de junio de 2000 perdió su investidura al demostrarse que incurrió en destinación indebida de recursos públicos, aprovechando su condición de miembro de la mesa directiva de la Cámara.
23). EDGAR PEREA ARIAS: (Senador Liberal) En una decisión dividida de 14 votos contra 9, el Consejo de Estado decidió el 18 de julio de 2000 declarar la perdida de la investidura de este parlamentario, al encontrarlo incurso en violación a la prohibición que recae sobre los 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 State Council said the disinvestment by influence-peddling.
26). SARAVIA DARIO GOMEZ (Representative) Judgement of 8 August 2001. Was applied as grounds for 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 INVIAS officer 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 blanket election and 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 to 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 of Justice.
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, by ruling of March 14, 1995];
2). Chavarro ADOLFO CARVAJAL [Agrado, hold public office for-teacher-];
3). MARIO DARIO MARTINEZ MEDINA [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 [of 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, for engaging in violation of incompatibilities, an advertising company that is hired by the municipality socio-];
11). Clever TERESA DÍAZ [de Hobo, incurrir en conflicto de intereses -participó en la discusión y aprobación de un acuerdo que benefició a uno de sus hijos-];
12). JOSÉ ADÁN RODRÍGUEZ ROJAS [de Pitalito, por violar el régimen de incompatibilidades, al incurrir en la prohibición de recibir doble asignación del Estado];
13). APARICIO GALINDO [de Yaguará, por violar el régimen de conflicto de intereses al intervenir en la aprobación de un acuerdo que beneficiaba a un cuñado];
14). ANA MARÍA ARAÚJO [de Yaguará, violar el régimen de conflicto de intereses al intervenir en la aprobación de un acuerdo que la beneficiaba directamente];
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 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 OF REFORM TO ACTION FOR LOSS OF INVESTITURE
Several of the new institutions that entered into force in the Colombian legal arena after the promulgation of the Constitution 1991 have been under severe criticism 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 reform to the action of loss of investment will only be acceptable in the average to 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. Action investment loss 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 such as the loss of endowment action constitute a bulwark of society against corrupt politicians, so its existence must be defended and any move aimed to weaken 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, Santafé de 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.
POVEDA ALBERTO PERDOMO (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), specialized studies 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.
