Previous 1 / 33 Next

Radicado: 19001-23-33-003-2019-00368-01 Demandante: Silvio Ortiz Daza Demandado: Oyther Manuel Candelo Riascos CONSEJO DE ESTADO SALA DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO SECCIÓN QUINTA Magistrada Ponente: ROCÍO ARAÚJO OÑATE Bogotá D.C., diez (10) de diciembre de dos mil veinte (2020) Referencia: Radicación: Demandante: Demandado: NULIDAD ELECTORAL 19001-23-33-003-2019-00368-01 SILVIO ORTIZ DAZA ACTO QUE DECLARÓ LA ELECCIÓN DEL SEÑOR OYTHER MANUEL CANDELO RIASCOS como Concejal del Municipio de Popayán –Cauca-, período 2020-2023 Temas: Apelación de sentencia, doble militancia en la modalidad de apoyo, objeción de conciencia como causal de exoneración de la prohibición contenida en los artículos 107 de la Constitución Política y 2 de la Ley 1475 de 2011 y 275.8 de la Ley 1437 de 2011. SENTENCIA DE SEGUNDA INSTANCIA Procede la Sala a resolver el recurso de apelación interpuesto por el demandado, contra la decisión adoptada en sentencia del 10 de septiembre 2020, por medio de la cual el Tribunal Administrativo del Cauca, accedió a las pretensiones de la demanda y declaró la nulidad del acto contentivo de la elección del señor Oyther Manuel Candelo Riascos, como Concejal del Municipio de Popayán, para el período 2020-2023. I. ANTECEDENTES 1.1 La demanda 1. El señor Silvio Ortiz Daza, actuando en nombre propio, presentó demanda en ejercicio del medio de control de n ulidad electoral, consagrado en el artículo 139 de la Ley 1437 de 2011, en la cual solicitó: “1.- DECLARAR la Nulidad del Acto Administrativo de ELECCIÓN contenido en el ACTA DE RESULTADOS DEL ESCRUTINIO DE VOTOS PARA CONCEJO DE POPAYÁN (E-26 CON), de fecha 31 DE OCTUBRE DE 2019, proferido por la COMISIÓN ESCRUTADORA MUNICIPAL DE POPAYAN…, en lo referente a la declaratoria de elección del señor, OYTHER MANUEL CANDELO RIASCOS, …, como Concejal Municipal de Popayán – Cauca para el período 2020 a 2023 en representación del PARTIDO POLITICO DE LA U, … por encontrarse incurso en: a. Causal de anulación de su elección por configurarse la DOBLE MILITANCIA POLÍTICA, al tenor de lo expuesto en la Constitución Política en su artículo 107, 1 Calle 12 No. 7-65 – Tel: (57-1) 350-6700 – Bogotá D.C. – Colombia www.consejodeestado.gov.co

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Ortiz Daza v. Act Declaring the Election of Candelo Riascos

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether a candidate is permitted to endorse a candidate from another party (“double militancy”) when he receives express permission or derogation from his own party to do so, despite the provision in law that prohibits this practice.

Alleged Acts: The plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated the prohibition on double militancy found in several statutes and the Constitution by endorsing a candidate who was not from the defendant’s registered party for the mayoral election in Popayán.

Procedural history: The plaintiff filed a lawsuit before the Administrative Court of Cauca seeking to cancel the defendant’s election as a municipal councilor due to lack of compliance with the Political Constitution, the CPACA (Código de Procedimiento Administrativo y de lo Contencioso Administrativo), and the Statutes of the Social Party of National Unity (“Partido de la U”) regarding candidacy rights. The Administrative Court of Cauca found in favor of the plaintiff and nullified the respondent’s election. The respondent appealed the decision, alleging that he received an exemption from his party to endorse the outside candidate.

Summary: The respondent registered as a municipal councilor candidate for the Party of the U and filed a petition with the head of the Party of the U, based on a conscientious objection, for permission to endorse a mayoral candidate from a different party. The head of the Party of the U granted the respondent permission to endorse a mayoral candidate endorsed by the coalition of the Green Alliance and Colombia Renaciente parties. The Council of State found that even though someone within the respondent’s party gave him permission to endorse another candidate, the legal prohibition on double militancy cannot be overruled by any mechanism by the respondent’s party. The parties cannot undermine the law by making exceptions for their candidates. The purpose of the prohibition on “double militancy” is to “maintain the validity of our democratic political system, so it acquires a capital importance, which must be observed as a tool for strengthening political parties and movements, by express Constitutional mandate, whose ultimate goal is to eliminate personalism and increase the standards of discipline of its members.” Thus, even though the defendant presented a conscience-related defense of his refusal to endorse his party’s mayoral candidate and endorse an outside candidate, the Court did not find that the respondent’s constitutional right “not to be ‘forced to act against his conscience’” could override the constitutional ban on double militancy.

Conclusion: The Court confirmed the ruling issued by the Administrative Court of Cauca and cancelled the election of defendant Oyther Manuel Candelo Riascos.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Disputing Results

Applicable Law(s): Article 275, Paragraph 8 of Law 1437 of 2011; Article 2, Paragraph 2 of Law 1475 of 2011

Region: Americas

Country: Colombia

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: Municipal

Date of decision: Dec 10, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 4.608820909876096

Longitude: -74.04714475730633

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Ortiz Daza.pdf
spanish
Download View