Previous 27 / 28 Next

Radicado: 11001-03-28-000-2019-00090-00 (Acum.) Actor: GONZALO RAMOS ROJAS y otros En conclusión, la Sala encuentra que la inhabilidad alegada por los demandantes al estar contenida en una norma interna del Partido Político Centro Democrático, no tiene la entidad de causal de nulidad de electoral. Sumado a lo anterior, como se demostró las circunstancias fácticas expuestas por la parte actora no encuadran en ninguna de las causales de inhabilidad legalmente estipuladas para ejercer el cargo de Gobernador del Casanare. En este orden de ideas, la Sala debe mencionar que la defensa del demandado expuso que el Partido Centro Democrático mediante la Resolución No. 049 de 24 de octubre de 201922, decidió: “ARTÍCULO PRIMERO: REVOCAR integralmente el artículo 13 de la Resolución No. 024 del 11 de septiembre de 2017… (…) ARTÍCULO TERCERO: VIGENCIA Y PUBLICIDAD. La presente resolución rige a partir de la fecha de su expedición…”. Lo anterior, para demostrar que la inhabilidad de que trata el artículo 13 de la Resolución No. 024 de 2017 del Partido Político Centro Democrático “…carece de validez y eficacia al consagrar disposiciones contrarias a la Constitución y las leyes de la República…” y solicita a título de excepción de mérito la inconstitucionalidad de dicha resolución. No obstante lo anterior, esta Sala considera que en razón de la conclusión según la cual la causal de inhabilidad creada por el Partido Político Centro Democrático, no puede incidir en la legalidad del acto de elección del demandado, porque su origen no es legal ni constitucional, resulta innecesario entrar a resolver la presunta inconstitucionalidad de la Resolución 024 de 2017, la que valga anotar ya no está vigente en razón de su derogatoria según se advierte en la Resolución 049 de 2019 del Partido Centro Democrático, pues se insiste en lo que concierne a este proceso electoral es claro que carece aplicación respecto de la situación del gobernador demandado. Valga señalar que resolver aspectos relacionados con la inconstitucionalidad, ineficacia o inaplicación de la vigencia de la Resolución 024 de 2017, resultarían imperioso solo en la hipótesis de aceptar que la causal de inhabilidad que se contiene y se alega en contra del demandado, pudiera ser aplicada en su caso, lo cual como ya “Por medio de la cual se revoca un artículo de la Resolución No. 024 del 11 de septiembre de 2017, y se dictan otras decisiones”. 22 Calle 12 No. 7-65 – Tel: (57-1) 350-6700 – Bogotá D.C. – Colombia www.consejodeestado.gov.co 27

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Ramos Rojas v. Sanabria Chacón

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether a political party’s internal rules on candidacy criteria relating to nepotism may nullify an election of one of its registered candidates if he violated the party rules but otherwise met the eligibility criteria set up in the Constitution or statutes.

Alleged Acts: The plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated intra-party laws after marrying the sister of the outgoing governor of the province where he was running for (and eventually elected) governor. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant’s party, the Democratic Center Political Party, passed Resolution No. 024 of 2017—which contained rules against conflicts of interest—but, upon a request by Gonzalo Ramos Rojas and others to revoke the defendant’s candidacy in line with this resolution, the party improperly passed another resolution denying the request.

Procedural history: The plaintiff requested that the National Electoral Council (CNE) revoke the defendant’s registration, but the CNE denied the request. After the announcement of the election, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Council of State to cancel the defendant’s election due to his breach of the anti-nepotism laws and the party rules on conflict of interest.

Summary: The defendant, Salomón Andrés Sanabria Chacón, won election as governor of Casanare. At the time, he was married to Cielo Barrera Rodríguez, who is the sister of Josué Alirio Barrera Rodríguez. Barrera Rodríguez was Governor of Casanare during the previous three-year term. Plaintiff argued that Resolution No. 024 of 2017 of the Statutes of the Democratic Center Political Party, to which the defendant belongs, prohibit the participation in the election of individuals who are a spouse or permanent partner or a person up to the “fourth degree of consanguinity, second degree of affinity or first civil” with a person who is occupying the elected office they are seeking. Plaintiff also cited Article 126 of the Constitution, which aims to avoid nepotism and promote equality of candidates in an election (“Los servidores públicos no podrán en ejercicio de sus funciones, nombrar, postular, ni contratar con personas con las cuales tengan parentesco hasta el cuarto grado de consanguinidad, segundo de afinidad, primero civil, o con quien estén ligados por matrimonio o unión permanente.”) (“Public servants may not, in the exercise of their functions, appoint, apply, or contract with persons with whom they are related up to the fourth degree of consanguinity, second degree of affinity, first civil, or with whom they are linked by marriage or permanent union.”) and Article 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights to suggest that the election of the defendant would violate the political rights of citizens to participate in “authentic” elections and freely express the “will of the electors.” Defendant argued that the resolution passed by his party is not valid because it “‘enshrin[es] provisions contrary to the Constitution and the laws of the Republic.’” Defendant added that the resolution cannot be considered by a judge because the resolution “does not have the character of an administrative act.” Therefore, the law that should be used to determine the validity of the defendant’s election is Article 30 of Law 617 of 2000, which prohibits only those candidates who have familial bonds by affinity to the second degree from running for governor. The Ministerio Público also requested that the Council of State deny the plaintiff’s claims, citing the same law as the basis for candidate disqualifications. In addition, it added that Article 29(3) of Law 1475 of 2011 stipulates that “no regime of disabilities and incompatibilities for popularly elected public servants shall be superior to that established for congressmen in the Constitution.” The Council of State found that the defendant did not violate the law, and although the defendant may have contravened the party resolution, the party resolution does not have legal or constitutional force. Therefore, the plaintiff does not have cause to nullify the defendant’s election as Governor of Casanare. While the resolution passed by the defendant’s party prohibits familial bonds by affinity up to the fourth degree, Colombian law only prohibits familial bonds by affinity up to the first degree. Since the defendant Sanabria Chacón was married to the sister of former Governor Josué Alirio Barrera Rodríguez, there was only second degree of affinity between the defendant and the former governor.

Conclusion: The Council of State denied the plaintiff’s claims, and the election of defendant Sanabria Chacón remained intact.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration

Applicable Law(s): Article 126 of the Constitution; Article 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Article 30, Paragraph 5 of Law 617 of 2000; Article 13 of Resolution No. 024 of 2017 of the Democratic Center Political Party; Article 47 of the Civil Code

Region: Americas

Country: Colombia

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Dec 3, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 4.623650859989211

Longitude: -74.09697385354207

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Ramos Rojas.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Ramos Rojas v. Sanabria Chacón

Primary Documents

Notifications