Communication from the Directive of the National Assembly regarding Legislative Omissions

 

FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCES

Español

The members of the Directive of the National Parliament, the fundamental political institution in a democratic regime and the highest forum representing popular sovereignty, in legitimately and legally exercising the duties conferred upon it by the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as well as by national laws and the Rules of Debates within the National Assembly, and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice passed down on August 4th of the present year regarding the unconstitutionality due to failure of the Legislative Branch to designate the members of the National Electoral Council (“NEC”), direct the following to a national and international audience in order to state our position regarding this decision:

 

  1. The spirit and purpose of the original Constitutional founders was none other than to establish a process of designating the authorities of the Electoral Council based on the recognition of the political legitimacy and exclusive competence of the National Assembly to designate the heads and members of this electoral organism, as established by the Constitution, which states the requirement of an affirmative vote by 2/3 of the representatives in the National Assembly in order to elect the members of the CNE and therefore institutionalizes the goal of achieving a majority political consensus in order to guarantee the legitimate democracy of the Electoral Council. This legitimate democracy in the electoral power, an indirect legitimacy, has its origin in the representative democracy present in the National Assembly. It would be a judicial error and an unacceptable policy for this Directive to accept that, in the name of supposed corrections to constitutional unconformities, the consistency and integrity of the norms and principles surrounding the legality of the State of Democracy, Law and Justice, were to deteriorate.

 

  1. As has been the opinion reiterated by the highest authorities of the National Assembly and the major political forces that exist in the parliament, and due to their essentially deliberative nature and their faithful expression of democratic pluralism in Venezuelan society, we categorically and publicly affirm, based on consistent political-judicial arguments, that the National Legislative Branch has not committed any of the supposed acts that could create a judicial situation contrary to the obligations and duties clearly established in the Constitution, and as such, could not have committed a constitutional failure. Within the National Assembly of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, incessantly continuous and energetic attempts have been made to achieve a consensus of the majority of members in the parliament, from various political affiliations, in order to ensure that the highest level of democratic legitimacy will be represented in the Electoral Council. The goal of achieving the highest consensus possible is and will be an unalterable duty of the members of the parliament. This goal will guarantee compliance with constitutional obligations, the objectives of the State and the supreme interests of the Nation.

 

  1. The permanent designation of the heads and supplemental members of the Electoral Council by the National Assembly will definitively alter the temporary nature of these members and will guarantee true conditions of equality, trustworthiness, impartiality, transparency and efficiency of the electoral processes. The designation of a National Electoral Council that is permanent, balanced and trustworthy, and that enjoys political recognition and legitimacy, will permit a strengthening of the National Electoral Power, consolidating the functions and basic pillars of this democratic institution. At the same time, the Constitution requires that the temporary nature of the Electoral Power cease, and it calls for the integration of a permanent entity in strict accordance with its terms. It would be an open and public contradiction to substitute one temporary Council for another, and would threaten the democratic and constitutional legitimacy of the electoral organism.

 

  1. The Supreme Court of Justice acknowledges in its decision that the failure to comply with a legal timeframe as established in the Electoral Power Law (“EPL”) cannot be considered illegitimate. The members of the Directive of the National Assembly declare, based on the legitimate political activity taking place in the National Assembly, that the current situation cannot be interpreted as an abstention, failure, silence or inaction of the National Legislative Power in complying with its constitutional obligations. The National Assembly has made, and will continue to make, all necessary attempts to overcome this situation in a legal manner, but it does not share the interpretation that this situation, as interpreted by the Court in order to defend strict formalist judicial notions, constitutes any legislative failure, based on the fact that the activities continue and the political mechanisms are operating in order to achieve an agreement and consensus in the National Assembly.

 

  1. The Supreme Court of Justice recognizes publicly in its decision that were it to name the five electoral heads and the rest of the supplemental members of the electoral organism – even if they are provisionary – it would constitute a breach of the separation of powers and the judicial branch would be interfering in the legislative branch by crossing into political terrain. In the case of a hypothetical recognition of the authorities of the CNE, the Court also recognizes the necessity of the legitimacy obtained by the affirmation by a significant majority of the representatives of this Parliament, which represents Civil Society, Judicial Scientists and Politicians and the power of citizens, as is clearly established in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

 

  1. The most important political responsibilities guaranteeing constitutionality, and  defense of the objectives of the State of Democracy, Law and Justice and the separation, equality and collaboration of powers, as well as the inalienable political rights of citizens, obligates us to publicly warn about the immediate political consequences, as well as those long term, of a decision that could affect the principles, values and obligations established clearly and precisely in the Constitution by the original founders. This warning call seeks to alert all national Public Power organisms and those in positions exercising the highest power in matters of the State, about the risks and flagrant violations this decision could represent to the integrity of the Constitution, as well as to democratic governance, stability and the political legitimacy of public institutions and social peace.

 

  1. As such, we are making an energetic call to those public powers, as well as a new call to the different groups within the parliament, to abandon radical and stubborn positions that do not contribute to achieving normal goals within democratic institutions. We expect the different parliamentarian groups to assume their political responsibilities and legal obligations in order to achieve the required consensus per the Constitution, to ensure the indispensable legitimacy necessary in determining the new Electoral Power.

 

  1. At the same time, we are alerting public opinion and political and social powers committed to the defense of a participatory and protagonist democracy, to activate those necessary political and constitutional mechanisms to preserve this democratic institution, above all in such moments when political factions are trying to destabilize the country, and generate insecurity and chaos throughout the nation.

 

  1. Finally, we want to make clear our political criteria. The constitutional separation of powers cannot be eroded or usurped without grave consequences for the constitutional and political architecture of the Republic. As such, a potential decision by the Supreme Court could affect the constitutionally defined legislative powers and the exercise and rights of political participation. Therefore the Directive considers that it should be the National Assembly, as the highest expression of democracy, which should determine whether or not there has been an intrusion by the Judicial Branch on the exclusive powers accorded to the legislature. Any type of pressure or interference that pretends to legitimize campaigns promoting conflicts between the two powers or pretends to influence decisions that would violate the Constitution and the Law, is unacceptable to the Directive. We consider that without  further limitations, pressure or undue interference, it is possible to consolidate this political and democratic institution, strengthen the unity and objectives of the State, follow the constitutional mandates set out by popular sovereignty and ensure peace in the Republic.

 

In the office of the Federal Legislative Palace, in the city of Caracas, the fifth day of the month of August, of the year two thousand and three.