Previous 4 / 25 Next

Radicado: 76001-23-33-000-2019-01102-01 Demandante: Antonio Ospina Carballo CONSEJO DE ESTADO SALA DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO SECCIÓN QUINTA Consejero ponente: CARLOS ENRIQUE MORENO RUBIO Bogotá, D.C., cinco (5) de noviembre de dos mil veinte (2020) Radicación número: 76001-23-33-000-2019-01102-01 Actor: ANTONIO OSPINA CARBALLO Demandado: GRISELDA JANETH RESTREPO GALLEGO - DIPUTADA DEL VALLE DEL CAUCA Referencia: NULIDAD ELECTORAL SENTENCIA SEGUNDA INSTANCIA Procede la Sala a resolver el recurso de apelación interpuesto por la apoderada del demandante contra la sentencia del 12 de marzo de 2020, proferida por el Tribunal Administrativo del Valle del Cauca, en la que negó las pretensiones de la demanda de la referencia. Lo anterior, con base en los siguientes I. ANTECEDENTES 1. Pretensión El ciudadano Antonio Ospina Carballo, por conducto de apoderada, presentó demanda en ejercicio del medio de control de nulidad electoral contra el acta parcial de escrutinio del 14 de noviembre de 2019, Formulario E-26 GOB, emitida por la Comisión Escrutadora del Departamento del Valle del Cauca, mediante la cual se declaró que la señora Griselda Janeth Restrepo Gallego tiene el derecho personal de ocupar una curul en la Asamblea Departamental del Valle del Cauca. En concreto, en el referido acto demandado, además de declarar la elección de la señora Clara Luz Roldán González como gobernadora del Departamento del Valle del Cauca, se dispuso que “En concordancia con el Artículo 25 de la Ley 1909 del año 2018, El (sic) candidato (a) GRISELDA JANETH RESTREPO GALLEGO, tendrá derecho personal a ocupar, en su orden, una curul a la ASAMBLEA del departamento VALLE (sic).” En la demanda se elevaron las siguientes pretensiones: “2.1. Que se declare parcialmente nula el Acta Parcial de Escrutinio Calle 12 No. 7-65 – Tel: (57-1) 350-6700 – Bogotá D.C. – Colombia www.consejodeestado.gov.co 4

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Ospina Carballo v. Restrepo Gallego

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether a candidate in the Departmental Assembly of Valle del Cauca gubernatorial election is eligible to be allocated a seat as Deputy even if he or she won fewer votes than the “blank vote option,” which won the second highest number of votes.

Alleged Acts: The plaintiff alleges that the election management body wrongly declared the respondent candidate as elected Deputy of the Departmental Assembly after he won the third highest number of votes after the blank vote option, which won the second highest number of votes. The plaintiff sought cancellation of the election and a repoll.

Procedural history: In the local assembly election, Clara Luz Roldán González was elected Governor with the highest number of votes. The second highest number of votes went to the ‘blank vote option” while the respondent won the third highest number of votes and earned the seat of Deputy Governor. The Administrative Court of Valle del Cauca initially dismissed without prejudice the plaintiff’s suit to give the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the suit and specify the grounds for seeking a cancellation of the election. The Administrative Court of Valle del Cauca then denied the plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed to the Fifth Section of the Council of State, where the seventh prosecutor requested that the Council of State affirm the lower court’s judgment.

Summary: Respondent Griselda Janeth Restrepo Gallego ran for governor of Valle del Cauca in 2020 and placed third in the election. The winner of the election was Clara Luz Roldán González. The “blank vote (nobody) option” placed second. According to the law, the candidate who places second in the polls may occupy a seat in the Departmental Assembly. The Scrutinizing Commission of the Department of Valle del Cauca declared the respondent the winner of the legislative seat. The plaintiff (losing candidate) filed a legal challenge seeking to disqualify the respondent from her position and/or cancel the election of the declared winner, arguing, in accordance with judgment C-145 of 1994 from the Constitutional Court and Article 14 of Law 84 of 1993, that if the third-place candidate is allocated a seat in the Departmental Assembly, it would undermine the will of the voters who chose the “blank vote option.” The legal provision states that the blank vote is the vote cast in the corresponding “blank vote” box and that the blank vote will not be taken into account to obtain the electoral quotient.1 The Administrative Court found in favor of the respondent, explaining that Article 9 of Legislative Act 01 of 2009 demands repeating an election or re-allocating affected seats only when the blank vote has won a majority of valid votes. The Court concluded that Legislative Act 02 of 2015, Article 112 of the Political Constitution, and Article 25 of Law 1909 of 2018 were designed to ensure that actual candidates could participate in the Departmental Assembly and could still occupy a seat in the assembly. On appeal, the seventh prosecutor, as advisor to the Court, recommended that the candidate who places second in a popular election has the right to occupy a seat in the Departmental Assembly, in accordance with Article 25 of Law 1909 of 2018. In addition, the prosecutor cited Resolution 2276 of 2019 from the National Electoral Council, which stipulated that “‘[i]n the event the blank vote or promoters of this, obtain the second vote in the elections of single-member positions, it will not be taken into account for the purposes of Article 25 of Law 1909 of 2018.’” The prosecutor added that Article 112 of the Constitution expressly refers to the second-place candidate and not the second-place demonstration, therefore requesting that the Council of State affirm the lower court’s judgment. The Council of State agreed, holding that the respondent had a right to occupy the legislative seat even though she received fewer votes than the “blank vote option.” According to Legislative Act 1 of 2009, the “blank vote option” plays an important role in triggering a repeat election only if it wins the majority of valid votes in that election. This was not the case in the present instance because the “blank vote option” did not win the majority of the votes; therefore, it did not have any effect on the next popular candidate’s ability to occupy the legislative seat, because the National Electoral Council’s (CNE) Resolution 2276 of 2019 clarified that the “blank vote option” does not take the form of a candidate.

Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed, and the respondent retains his seat as deputy in the Department Assembly for Valle del Cauca.

Legal Issue(s)

Disputing Results

Applicable Law(s): Article 9 of Legislative Act 01 of 2009; Legislative Act 02 of 2015; Article 112 of the Political Constitution; Article 258 of the Constitution; Article 25 of Law 1909 of 2018; Article 25 of Law 1909 of 2015; Article 2, Paragraph 2 of Resolution 2276 of 2019

Region: Americas

Country: Colombia

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Nov 5, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 4.871590699544662

Longitude: -74.17145529833257

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Ospina Carballo.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Ospina Carballo v. Restrepo Gallego

Primary Documents

Notifications