Previous 3 / 25 Next

Radicado: 11001-03-28-000-2019-00088-00 Demandante: Yidis Medina Padilla Referencia: NULIDAD ELECTORAL SENTENCIA ÚNICA INSTANCIA Corresponde a la Sala decidir la demanda presentada por la señora Yidis Medina Padilla en ejercicio del medio de control de nulidad electoral consagrado en el artículo 139 del Código de Procedimiento Administrativo y de lo Contencioso Administrativo, contra la elección del señor Nerthink Mauricio Aguilar Hurtado como gobernador del departamento de Santander para el período 2020- 2023. I. ANTECEDENTES 1. Pretensión La pretensión de la demanda fue del siguiente tenor: “Que es nulo parcialmente el acto administrativo de declaratoria de elección formato E-26 GOB expedido el día 12 de noviembre de 2019, por medio de los cuales la Comisión Escrutadora Departamental de Santander, declaró la elección de NERTHINK MAURICIO AGUILAR HURTADO como Gobernador del Departamento de Santander para el periodo constitucional 2020 al 2023, como consta en las Actas de Escrutinio General y parcial cuyas copias auténticas adjunto (Ver Prueba 1º)” La pretensión tuvo como fundamento los siguientes 2. Hechos Señaló que el señor Elkin David Bueno Altahona fue designado como candidato único a la Gobernación de Santander para el período 2020-2023, por la coalición denominada “Santander es bueno”, conformada por los partidos políticos Cambio Radical, AICO, ASI, ADA y PRE. Indicó que sus representantes legales, mediante documento firmado el 23 de julio de 2019, acordaron el cumplimiento de ciertos requisitos cuyo desconocimiento podía ser causal de nulidad o revocatoria de la inscripción . Mencionó que lo acordado por los miembros de la coalición fue: i) el mecanismo de designación del candidato, ii) el programa de gobierno conjunto, iii) los mecanismos de financiación de la campaña, rendición de informes y administración de recursos y la distribución de la reposición de gastos , iv) publicidad, auditoría interna y v) el mecanismo para confirmar la terna en caso de reemplazo. Refirió que la candidatura del señor Bueno Altahona quedó formalizada con el Calle 12 No. 7-65 – Tel: (57-1) 350-6700 – Bogotá D.C. – Colombia www.consejodeestado.gov.co 3

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Medina Padilla v. Aguilar Hurtado

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether an election should be annulled because the elected candidate received an endorsement from registered members of a political party, along with some of that party’s militants, other than the candidate’s registered party.

Alleged Acts: The winning gubernatorial candidate, Nerthink Mauricio Aguilar Hurtado, received endorsements from a political party that was not the party to which he belonged. The candidate is accused of engaging in “double militancy.”

Procedural history: Following the announcement of the 2019 gubernatorial election results by the Departmental Scrutinizing Commission of Santander, Plaintiff Yidis Medina Padilla (the losing candidate) filed a lawsuit before the Council of State challenging the election of the winning candidate. This judgment is a first instance and final judgment.

Summary: Nerthink Mauricio Aguilar Hurtado was elected governor of Santander, Colombia with the support of a coalition comprised of a significant group of citizens called “Siempre Santander” and the Conservative Party. The governor-elect also received endorsements from the Independent Social Alliance Party (ASI) and some of its candidates. After the Departmental Scrutinizing Commission of Santander announced the results, the plaintiff filed an appeal, arguing that Law 1475 of 2011 extended the prohibition on “double militancy” to the endorsement of candidates from another party, and thus the prohibition should void the endorsement ASI gave to Aguilar Hurtado. Even though Article 107 of the Constitution does not refer to any sanction against candidates who register for more than one political party, the plaintiff argued that it was clear that candidates generally are prohibited from registering for more than one party or movement. The plaintiff emphasized that the prohibition against “double militancy” was designed to strengthen political parties and respect the voters’ support for those parties. She also argued that if the Council of State permitted Aguilar Hurtado to receive the support of the ASI, it would undermine the ability of Law 1475 of 2011 to keep the parties disciplined and accountable to the voters, who trust their party with espousing their preferred “political orientation.” The defendant argued that it is only illegal to give support to, not receive support from, multiple political parties or movements, because the law does not mention anything about receiving support (endorsement by candidates). The public prosecutor, who acted as an advisor to the Court in this case, agreed with the defendant, emphasizing that receiving support is not illegal because it was the endorsing party that committed the act rather than the defendant. Therefore, the public prosecutor recommended that the Council of State reject the plaintiff’s claims. The Council of State cited Article 2 of Law 1475 of 2011, where it stipulates “[t]hose who serve in positions . . . within political parties and movements . . . may not support candidates other than those registered by the political party or movement to which they are affiliated.” The Council of State agreed with the defendant and prosecutor and found that “double militancy” is defined as the illegal act of supporting a candidate in another party rather than receiving support from candidates of another party. The Court held that the law did not proscribe against receiving support from another party or movement.

Conclusion: The Council of State dismissed the challenge and the defendant governor-elect remained elected.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Disputing Results
Party Registration

Applicable Law(s): Article 107 of the Political Constitution; Article 2, Paragraph 2 of Law 1475 of 2011; Article 275, Number 8 of Law 1437 of 2011

Region: Americas

Country: Colombia

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Aug 20, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 4.642072653702944

Longitude: -74.06893031806389

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Medina Padilla.pdf
spanish
Download View