Previous 4 / 28 Next

Radicado: 11001-03-28-000-2019-00090-00 (Acum.) Actor: GONZALO RAMOS ROJAS y otros que su establecimiento no contradice el ordenamiento jurídico, por el contrario la consideran “…razonable y proporcional”. Indiciaron que, en su criterio, el contenido de la Resolución 024 del 11 de septiembre de 2017, coincide con la prohibición de que trata el artículo 126 Constitucional, que pretenden evitar el nepotismo y que el parentesco afecte el derecho a la igualdad que debe primar entre los candidatos a cargos de elección popular. Expusieron que la vulneración de dicha norma Constitucional en el presente proceso se presentó a raíz de que el entonces “…gobernador en ejercicio durante toda la campaña electoral siguió rigiendo la administración departamental del Casanare -hasta muy pocos días antes de las fechas de las elecciones, inaugurando obras, etc.-, a donde logró imponer a su cuñado como su sucesor, en una abierta violación a la prohibición de prácticas de nepotismo y a la prohibición establecida por el partido que avaló a los dos cuñados, el actual y el entrante”. Finalmente, se expuso que el acto electoral “...vulnera la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos, artículo 23 que establece como derechos políticos: `b) de votar y ser elegidos en elecciones periódicas auténticas, realizadas por sufragio universal e igual y por voto secreto que garantice la libre expresión de la voluntad de los electores´, (…)”. 1.4. Trámite del Proceso En el expediente 11001-03-28-000-2019-00090-00, por auto de 16 de enero de 2020, se admitió la demanda, lo mismo sucedió en el No.11001-03-28-000-2019-00085-00, mediante proveído de 6 de febrero del mismo, con la diferencia que en esa oportunidad la Sala denegó la suspensión provisional de los efectos del acto de elección demandado solicitada por el demandante. Luego, en providencia de 17 de julio de 2020, se decretó la acumulación de los procesos: 11001-03-28-000-2019-00085-00 promovido por GUILLERMO FRANCISCO REYES GONZÁLEZ, y 11001-03-28-000-2019-00090-00 adelantado por GONZALO RAMOS ROJAS, EDWIN GABRIEL DIAZ y LIZETH YAZMÍN VALENCIA BALBUENA. 1.5. Contestaciones 1.5.1. Del demandado Para oponerse a la pretensión de los demandantes, de anular su acto de elección como Gobernador de Casanare, su apoderado judicial indicó que el señor SALOMÓN Calle 12 No. 7-65 – Tel: (57-1) 350-6700 – Bogotá D.C. – Colombia www.consejodeestado.gov.co 4

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