The bill limits the term of office of the Attorney General of the Republic to five years.
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives governing body obtained a majority opinion in the plenary session of the Constitutional Affairs and Justice bodies for the executive law bill that proposes amending the Attorney General’s office, an initiative that was enabled to be addressed in the enclosure. .
The bill sets the term of office of the Attorney General of the Republic – the chief prosecutor – to five years, and amends the majority needed to appoint him, a proposal rejected by Juntos por el Cambio.
After more than five hours of debate, the Todos Front won the majority opinion with 33 signatures of its own and that of Jos Ramn of Mendoza (Development Unit), while Juntos por el Cambio signed the minority opinion with 30 supporters while Representative Graciela Camao (Federal consensus – Buenos Aires) signed Ayres) introduced the third text.
At the start of the meeting, the Joint Block Together for Change, through Representative Ezequiel Fernández Langan (PRO-Buenos Aires), questioned the meeting texts and working methodology – with some lawmakers linked to the Zoom platform – to what official Rodolfo said in response to Tailhade (FdT-Buenos Aires). Aires) that the meeting was correct because “that is what the bylaws specify”.
The round of presentations began with Representative Vanessa Seeley (FdT-Buenos Aires), who indicated that the opinion “was overtaken by strong content regarding the gender perspective, as a result of the meeting held by many prosecutors with the Minister (Justice, Martin) Syria.”
“The Public Prosecutor will not remain in office for life and for this reason, these specializations are not required at that time by law and not by the constitution.”“
Vanessa Seeley
“ The question about appointment and majority, for the purposes of appointing a plaintiff, to move from two-thirds to an absolute majority, is related to the fact that the office will not last for life, and that this is the reason that such a majority is not required, and it was established at that time by law and not by the constitution.
For Together for Change, Vice Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Gustavo Mina (UCR-Chubut), defined the position of this space: “We will completely reject this law that comes from the Senate because we consider it to be in clear violation of the Constitution.”
Rodolfo Tilhaide is Chairman of the Representative Justice Committee.
“This is a discussion that comes from the beginning of the state itself, which is whether the Public Prosecution should be placed in the orbit of the judiciary or the executive authority, which was dispersed in the 1994 constitutional reform and considered it an independent and independent authority, which are features that this project does not know.
The president of the Civic Coalition Authority, Juan Lopez (CC-CABA), also criticized the ruling party.
“I don’t know if they have the votes and I don’t know if they will, but if they do, they’ll have to break a lot of things, from an institutional point of view, for example. I invite you to continue to legislate the consensus and look into (Daniel) Ravikas’s procurement specifications. , Lopez said.
“We will categorically reject this law that comes from the Senate because we consider it openly against the constitution.”“
Gustavo Mina
Jos Luis Ramn out of Mendoza (Federal Unity and Equity) at the crossroads of questions in support of the reform. We are far from making a change for a simple thing. What is being a “traitor to the nation?” Study what modifications can be made to a project that would improve the lives of millions of Argentines? We want something or everything to happen and ask, “Continue As is?”
Defending his opinion, Camus stated, “It is not the time to resolve the OTP case, and if the Interim Public Prosecutor (by Eduardo Casale) has made any mistake, there are mechanisms to replace him based on the commission’s work. With two chambers.”
“We are not going to solve the problem by amending the law to a position. From the ruling party they ended up saying that Cambiemos wanted to change (ex-lawyer, Alejandra) Giles Karp and now they say the project is the same,” he warned.
Despite not being part of either committee, left-wing MP Nicolas Del Cao (PTS in FIT-Buenos Aires) said: “This proposal by the ruling party has a very clear goal of increasing government control by moving towards the attorney general and justice, while taking Bearing in mind that the accusation system will be implemented. “
The fiery speeches of the ruling party Leopoldo Moro (FDT-Buenos Aires) and the Republican Silvia Lospinato (Pro-Buenos Aires) were the most intense minutes of the meeting, marked by comments from other MPs speaking off the microphone as they were exposed. His peers emerged, among them the ruling party is Nicolas Rodriguez SA (FdT-Buenos Aires) and macrista Fernando Iglesias (PRO-CABA).
Representative Graciela Camo (Federal Consensus – Buenos Aires) presented the third text.
Most of the speeches were made with comments from other lawmakers who spoke off the microphone, and among them was those made by macrista Fernando Iglesias.
As chair of the Justice Committee, Tayladi had to draw the attention of Macrista Iglesias because, while delivering his speech, Morrow said “I forgot something,” the PRO Vice President identified the “pill”, an intervention that was worth disavowing with the majority of lawmakers present.
The office agreed to amend the text voted by the Senate, which it should return to the Senate, because it would change the composition of the jury to ensure gender equality and the majority to be able to remove the plaintiff, who was proposed by Minister Syria.
Regarding the formation of that court, the ruling party agreed to amend the originally submitted bill and add a member of the Public Prosecution Office to replace a legislator, as the bill established two for the majority and one for the minority.
With this reform, the Public Prosecution Court will consist of a representative of the executive branch, two representatives of the bicameral Parliamentary Committee (one for the majority and the other for the minority), a representative of the Interuniversity National Council, a lawyer and two prosecutors (male and female).
As for the specializations, it will be proven that for the removal of the Attorney General, five votes – which means two-thirds – and four votes will be required for the rest of the decisions.
