Some additional observations of the CNE decision on Friday:
-Article 50 of the Organic Law of Administrative procedures: In the case of formal defects that may affect request from the public administration…there is a right to correct them, which implies, in general terms, the right of the presenter for the administration to advise him of the errors and give him 15 days to correct the errors”. Need I say more?
-Article in page A-2 of El Universal “Hunting swallows with cannons” by Josť PeŮa Solis a former President of the Electoral Hall of the Supreme Court (named by the Chavez administration), who says among other things:
“the CNE ignored the substantive elements which constitute the nucleus of the right to participate , guaranteed in Article 62 of the of the Constitution…..the CNE ignored the fundamental right, did not fulfill that imposes on it the Constitution in Article 62 of the Constitution that it has to “facilitate the generation of conditions favorable for its practice, since it is obvious that which a decision like this one, far from facilitating the exercise of the law, it proceeded to block it and almost sacrifice it. ….An old basic principle of law says that formal problems of an act or request have the character of irregularities which do not invalidate…….when the reasoning of the untimeliness of the signatures, the first thing that is observed is that it ignores the binding doctrine of the decision by the Constitutional Hall on 2-13-2003, and in the supposition that it did not estimate that this was binding, then, given that it was a problem with form, what would have corresponded was to correct it, publishing the signatures and opening a period for all those that had signed to have the possibility of retracting themselves on the basis that In February it was evaluation the President’s performance negatively and now it considers it to be positive…..I think that there is a lack of proportionality in the decision (invalidating more than three million signatures due to formal defects), in this perspective it reveals an inexcusable judicial error…..”
-Finally, the biggest irony of the decision to tell Sumate that it could not legally submit signatures the National Electoral Council is the fact that article 296 of the Venezuelan Constitution says that the members of the CNE will be persons with no political affiliation, something that would invalidate the presence in that Board of two of the members that voted in favor of the resolution and one of the ones that abstained. Does this make their decision unconstitutional? Moreover, according to the Constitution, political parties can not name candidates to the CNE, but supposedly only parties can make requests in front of it. Does this make sense?……..