Previous 17 / 36 Next

base en el récord. Rivera Rodríguez & Co. v. Lee Stowell, 133 DPR 881, 889 (1993). Sobre el primer requisito, hemos expresado que la “notificación adecuada brinda a las partes la oportunidad de advenir en conocimiento real de la decisión tomada, a la vez que otorga a las personas cuyos derechos pudieran verse transgredidos una mayor oportunidad de determinar si ejercen o no los remedios disponibles por ley”. Picorelli López v. Depto. De Hacienda, 179 DPR 720, 737 (2010). Como parte de esta notificación adecuada es necesario advertir sobre los remedios que tiene disponible la parte, entre ellos, “el trámite administrativo que deb[e] proseguir”. Olivo v. Srio. de Hacienda, 164 DPR 165, 178 (2005). Valga aclarar que cuando hablamos de debido proceso de ley aludimos a la vertiente constitucional de dicho derecho. Es decir, existen una serie de garantías otorgadas por leyes, por ejemplo, las Reglas de Procedimiento Civil o la Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo Uniforme (LPAU), que exceden las garantías constitucionales reconocidas en la cláusula del debido proceso de ley. Así, en el ámbito civil se ha reconocido un derecho estatutario a apelar las determinaciones judiciales y a ser notificado de esa apelación. Por otro lado, en el ámbito administrativo el derecho a apelar ante un tribunal adquiere una dimensión constitucional, pues hemos expresado que “el derecho a cuestionar la determinación de una agencia mediante revisión judicial es parte del debido proceso de ley protegido por la Constitución de Puerto Rico”. Rocío Fonte v. F & R Construction, S.E., 2016 TSPR 194, 196 DPR ____ (2016). Por tanto, hemos concluido que “la falta de notificación adecuada del recurso de revisión de una decisión administrativa puede afectar la jurisdicción del Tribunal de Apelaciones”. Mun. de San Juan v. Jta. Planificación, 189 DPR 895, 903 (2013). En síntesis, el debido proceso de ley incluye el derecho a apelar ante un tribunal una determinación administrativa y a ser notificado de ese derecho. Sin embargo, nuestro ordenamiento no exige que se notifique a la otra parte la apelación instada ante un foro administrativo. Vale la pena destacar que el objetivo de la adjudicación administrativa es proveer un sistema justo, práctico y flexible. Y es que, el debido proceso de ley ofrece protección contra

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission (CEE) violated the due process rights of voters with mobility impairments by denying their early voting applications (voto adelantado) based on alleged deficiencies in their forms — including missing signatures, incomplete information, and suspected fraud (e.g., dozens of applications certified by the same physician on the same date) — while simultaneously failing to provide timely notice of those denials, thereby depriving the voters of any meaningful opportunity to cure the defects before the November 8, 2016 general election.

Alleged Acts: The controversy arose during the evaluation of early voting applications (voto adelantado) for voters with mobility impairments ahead of the November 8, 2016 general elections in Puerto Rico. Under Puerto Rico's electoral law, registered voters who suffer from a condition that impedes their mobility and prevents them from going to their assigned polling places on election day may request early voting — including "at-home" early voting for bedridden voters (encamados). The request requires medical certification of the mobility impairment. The State Elections Commission (Comisión Estatal de Elecciones, or "CEE"), presided over by defendant García Vélez, had initiated a process through which at least 10,000 Puerto Rican citizens were granted access to early voting due to mobility impediments. However, 788 of these applications were challenged before the CEE due to alleged defects.

Procedural history: On October 28, 2016 — just days before the November 8 general election — the Electoral Commissioner of the Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) petitioned the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico to review the CEE's denials, asking the Court to authorize the hundreds of denied early voting applications for persons with mobility impairments.

Summary: In the weeks leading up to the November 8, 2016 general elections in Puerto Rico, the State Elections Commission (CEE) processed over 10,000 applications for early voting from voters with mobility impairments who were unable to go to their assigned polling places on election day. The CEE identified 788 applications as potentially defective. However, the CEE sent the denial notices late to the affected voters, giving them no meaningful opportunity to respond to the alleged defects or to cure the deficiencies before the election.

Conclusion: The Court ruled that the CEE's late notification of its denial resolution violated the due process rights of disabled voters, and as a remedy, validated all of the challenged early voting applications, thereby allowing the hundreds of voters with mobility impairments to cast their ballots in the November 8, 2016 general election.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility
Voter Registration
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Puerto Rico Constitution, Article II, § 7, and Puerto Rico Electoral Law

Region: Americas

Country: Puerto Rico

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Nov 4, 2016

Geolocation

Latitude: 18.4578

Longitude: -66.0863

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.lexjuris.com/LexJuris/tspr2016/lexj2016227a.htm

Primary Documents

San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez

Primary Documents

Notifications