Previous 18 / 28 Next

Radicado: 11001-03-28-000-2019-00090-00 (Acum.) Actor: GONZALO RAMOS ROJAS y otros pronunciamiento a que haya lugar luego de abordar y definir el debate planteado por las partes. 2.2. De las inhabilidades estatutarias En este orden de ideas es claro que en este caso lo primero que se debe dilucidar es si las inhabilidades de origen estatutario tienen la entidad jurídica suficiente para anular la elección del demandando como gobernador del departamento del Casanare. Debe advertirse que la señora Procuradora Judicial realizó un estudio respecto de la naturaleza jurídica que debería darse a la Resolución 024 del 11 de septiembre de 2017 del Partido Político Centro Democrático, del que concluye que no se trata de un acto que guarde relación con los estatutos de dicha colectividad política. Sin embargo, considera este juez electoral que la controversia no se ciñe sobre la naturaleza jurídica de dicha resolución y tampoco respecto de si tiene o no la entidad de ser considerarla como reforma de los estatutos sino que el debate de legalidad recae sobre el acto de elección del señor SALOMÓN ANDRÉS SANABRIA CHACÓN, como Gobernador del departamento del Casanare, en los términos en los cuales se fijó el litigio en la audiencia inicial, para lo cual resultará suficiente con advertir que este aspecto -si la resolución 024 de 2017 contiene una inhabilidad que impedía que el demandado fuera avalado e inscrito como candidato por esa colectividad política -, en ningún momento fue cuestionado por las partes desde la óptica de si podía o no hacer parte de los Estatutos del Centro Democrático, partiendo de la manera en la cual fue expedida e incluso revocada. Por el contrario, las partes en sus pronunciamientos aceptaron que dicha resolución, en lo que interesa al presente trámite electoral, contiene una inhabilidad de origen estatutaria y ese trato se le otorgará para resolver el problema jurídico fijado en la audiencia inicial. Así las cosas, la Sala debe referirse al valor jurídico y los alcances de los estatutos y demás reglas que al interior de una colectividad política se expidan para reglamentar el ingreso, la permanencia y demás exigencias establecidas para sus integrantes y demás ciudadanos. Resulta conveniente destacar que esta Sala Electoral en un caso similar al presente, concluyó: “El valor o rango normativo de las normas internas de los partidos `no es el de una norma de índole legal o constitucional de forma que su desconocimiento no tiene la virtualidad de configurar la causal consagrada en el numeral quinto del artículo Calle 12 No. 7-65 – Tel: (57-1) 350-6700 – Bogotá D.C. – Colombia www.consejodeestado.gov.co 18

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