On the basis of a regulation and a resolution, both enumerated as of 01-2021, the Junta Central Electoral adopted, the 27th March passed, the median decisions taking place establish the order in which the political parties appear in the electoral ballot of the elections of 2024, as well as the public funding that was received.
The criterion for adopting these decisions is based on the idea of achieving a summary of the validly received votes of each form by each political organization at the three levels exercised in the last election, that is, presidential, senatorial and deputies.
The impact that these decisions have on the national political stage has been disconcerting. The method used by the electoral organ to distribute economic resources to political organizations has generated a large number of responses to national public opinion, considering that the system of parties is debilitated, affecting the climate of governance and justice.
The alarming dimension that has generated the JCE’s decision has been the magnitude that has provoked the insecure of 20 organizations of all the national political spectrum hayan alzado su voz and solicits su modification, by injustice, atropellante and inequitable.
The result is difficult to find a precedent in the history of the Central Electoral Union in which 20 political organizations have applied in writing to the electoral institution for consideration of a decision on the issue of establishing the stability and survival of the party system.
More escalation resulted in an episode in which the first significant decision adopted by a new full-fledged hubie referred to in the generalization of the political parties was a reaction of indignation of its dimension as provoked by the designation criterion adopted by the electoral junta.
NULIDAD Y SILENCIO WETGEWER
The situation is such that it is taken into account that the precedent of the recent decision of the Junta Central Electoral is found in Resolution No. 02- 2017, from February 7, 2017, the same establishes the same criterion for summarizing the valid votes in the three levels to assign the public funding to the party organizations.
What agreement with this 2017 resolution was adopted in the same terms as the JCE deadline?
Simple, that was declared zero. This is the median sentence of the Superior Electoral Tribunal number 013-2017, April 26, 2017.
In its disposition, the sentence referred to as follows: “Cancel with all its legal consequences the Resolution Núm. 02/2017, dictated by the Junta Central Electoral (JCE), on 7 February 2017, by violating Articles 69.5 and 110 of the Constitution of the Republic, in accordance with the reasons given in this sentence. ”
As such, it has a previous declaration of unconstitutionality of a resolution established as a criterion for the allocation of public funds to political parties, the summation of the votes cast for election at the three levels of election.
If there is a precedent for declaration of unconstitutionality a resolution establishing the same criteria contemplated in Regulation no. 01-2021, What’s the procedure for your reunion, what about your previous visit?
This results in an absurdity, incoherent and unspoken, that habras, tal vez, that find the answer consulting the Oracle of Delphos. There is no legal provision that establishes the methodology or criterion that must be used to distribute public funds among political parties. Not shown in the Constitution of the Republic. Tampoco finds himself in the party hall; y está ausente en la legislación sobre régimen elections.
The only reference or guide to the particular is Article 61 of Ley 33-18 of Parties, Groups and Political Movements, which signals the criterion that serves as a basis for the distribution of State funds.
These include: An increase in interest (80%), among the parties that have increased more than five per cent in the number of votes cast in the last election; one dose per cent (12%) among those who have increased more than one per cent (1%) and less than five per cent (5%); and an increase in interest (8%) between those who increased between one point and one in one (0.01%) and one in one (1%) of the valid votes obtained. As can be observed, in its legal disposition it is not consigned only to the levels of election it is required to access the public funds. Tampoco indicates that the Central Electoral Board must summarize, multiply, divide, forward or execute arithmetic ownership only to determine the percentage that corresponds to each party.
Consequently, when a political organization has increased more than 5%, more than 1% and more than 0.01% of the valid ballot papers in the last election, it has legitimate right to participate in public funding prevalent in our electoral legislation.
ENMENDAR VN DESACIERTO
In addition to the lagoons, lack of clarity or insufficiency of the law, corresponding to the Junta Central Electoral, in all matters concerning its competence, own its regulatory power, as it has prevailed in Article 215 of the Constitution of the Republic.
But you can do it in the form of a capricious or anti-Jewish. It is based on the principles of equality, as well as the reasons for reasonableness and favoritism, exemplified in the application and interpretation of the rights and fundamental guarantees set out in Articles 39, 74.2 and 74.4, of our Carta Magna. El derecho a elegir y ser elegible, la libertad de association, la libertad de conciencia y cultos, la libertad de reunion, la libertad de expression et la libertad de transitso, son derechos fundamentales, de los cuales disfrutan los politicos partisos.
As such, it is clear that the Junta Central Electoral Debate has applied the principles of equality, reasonableness and favorability, while establishing the criteria for allocating funds to political parties based on the percentages obtained in the last election.
Prohibition of sin, no procedure de esa manera. On the other hand, in French, violating the Constitution establishes a summary formula based on this decision, it seeks to resort to more unequal, irrational and unjustified forms of discrimination in the discrimination of democracy and the power of the system.
This confirms the 80 per cent of the recourse to both parties; the 12 for ten to five parties; y el 8 por ciento a 18 partidos. The arbitration and improvised arithmetic formulation of the Junta Central Electoral term in the practice of deconstructing lawillad of the electors that the otorgaron has an organization like the Fuerza del Pueblo, the 5.69 per cent of the votes valid in the presidential elections, majority with right to obtain the corresponding funding in this category
As a ray of light in the middle of the tenebrosa tiniebla that represented the Regulation No. 01-2021, on the Consolidation of Democracy and the Advancement of Parties, Magistrate Dolores Altagracia Fernández Sánchez, titular member of the Junta Central Electoral, with his reasoned dissenting vote, opens a coalition of hope to return the transmitter reason, equality and justice.
In its anthological decision, it states: “In our judgment, the criterion established in Regulation no. 01-2021, the summary of the validly received votes of each party by each party organization in the three electoral disputes celebrated in the last elections on July 5, 2020, no result applicable in virtue of transgressing the principle of equal status in the article 39 of the Sustainable Care and the Principles of Reasonability and Favorability. ”
Congratulations, Magistrada!