Previous 16 / 36 Next

días después de su emisión y por correo postal, lo que, según la mayoría “indiscutiblemente coartó el derecho de los electores a instar un recurso de revisión judicial y a defender su derecho individual”.[31] No tiene razón. Veamos. A. La sección 7 del Artículo II de la Constitución de Puerto Rico establece que “[n]inguna persona será privada de su libertad o propiedad sin un debido proceso de ley”. La jurisprudencia federal y estatal ha reconocido que el debido proceso de ley tiene dos vertientes: la sustantiva y la procesal. Mientras que la sustantiva examina la justicia intrínseca de la norma, la procesal procura el “derecho de toda persona a tener un proceso justo y con todas las garantías que ofrece la ley, tanto en el ámbito judicial como en el administrativo”. Marrero Caratini v. Rodríguez Rodríguez, 138 DPR 215, 220 (1995). Mediante esta doctrina se examina si el ciudadano gozó de un procedimiento justo e imparcial antes de que su derecho de propiedad o de libertad fuese afectado por el Estado. Para ser acreedor de las garantías del debido proceso de ley primero hay que determinar si, en efecto, hay un interés propietario o libertario constitucionalmente protegido afectado negativamente por una actuación gubernamental. Serrano Vélez v. ELA, 154 DPR 418, 437 (2001). Una vez reconocido, corresponde establecer cuáles son las garantías que el Estado debe satisfacer. Al resolver estos casos, hemos expresado que la naturaleza del debido proceso es “circunstancial y pragmática”. Domínguez Talavera v. Tribunal Superior, 102 DPR 423, 428 (1974). Así, las garantías procesales que el Estado debe reconocer dependen del tipo de procedimiento y de los intereses afectados. Este Tribunal ha reconocido una serie de requisitos que el Estado debe satisfacer en todo procedimiento adversativo para cumplir con las exigencias del debido proceso de ley: (1) una notificación adecuada del proceso; (2) un proceso ante un juez imparcial; (3) una oportunidad razonable de ser oído; (4) el derecho a contrainterrogar testigos y examinar evidencia presentada en su contra; (5) tener asistencia de abogado, y (6) que la decisión se

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission (CEE) violated the due process rights of voters with mobility impairments by denying their early voting applications (voto adelantado) based on alleged deficiencies in their forms — including missing signatures, incomplete information, and suspected fraud (e.g., dozens of applications certified by the same physician on the same date) — while simultaneously failing to provide timely notice of those denials, thereby depriving the voters of any meaningful opportunity to cure the defects before the November 8, 2016 general election.

Alleged Acts: The controversy arose during the evaluation of early voting applications (voto adelantado) for voters with mobility impairments ahead of the November 8, 2016 general elections in Puerto Rico. Under Puerto Rico's electoral law, registered voters who suffer from a condition that impedes their mobility and prevents them from going to their assigned polling places on election day may request early voting — including "at-home" early voting for bedridden voters (encamados). The request requires medical certification of the mobility impairment. The State Elections Commission (Comisión Estatal de Elecciones, or "CEE"), presided over by defendant García Vélez, had initiated a process through which at least 10,000 Puerto Rican citizens were granted access to early voting due to mobility impediments. However, 788 of these applications were challenged before the CEE due to alleged defects.

Procedural history: On October 28, 2016 — just days before the November 8 general election — the Electoral Commissioner of the Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) petitioned the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico to review the CEE's denials, asking the Court to authorize the hundreds of denied early voting applications for persons with mobility impairments.

Summary: In the weeks leading up to the November 8, 2016 general elections in Puerto Rico, the State Elections Commission (CEE) processed over 10,000 applications for early voting from voters with mobility impairments who were unable to go to their assigned polling places on election day. The CEE identified 788 applications as potentially defective. However, the CEE sent the denial notices late to the affected voters, giving them no meaningful opportunity to respond to the alleged defects or to cure the deficiencies before the election.

Conclusion: The Court ruled that the CEE's late notification of its denial resolution violated the due process rights of disabled voters, and as a remedy, validated all of the challenged early voting applications, thereby allowing the hundreds of voters with mobility impairments to cast their ballots in the November 8, 2016 general election.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility
Voter Registration
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Puerto Rico Constitution, Article II, § 7, and Puerto Rico Electoral Law

Region: Americas

Country: Puerto Rico

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Nov 4, 2016

Geolocation

Latitude: 18.4578

Longitude: -66.0863

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.lexjuris.com/LexJuris/tspr2016/lexj2016227a.htm

Primary Documents

San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez

Primary Documents

Notifications