San Juan is running in the election: what now?

A group though Court of Appeal He sent the election-related controversy back to the mayor of San Juan First CourtIf the mayor, the process will be stopped again in that forum Miguel Romero Request a review Supreme Court, As you expected yesterday.

Former President of the Bar Association Arturo Hernandez At this point, he stressed that the Supreme Court would have had only a jurisdictional dispute before it, precisely the panel consisting of appellate judges Fernando Bonilla Artis, Nerida Cortez Gonzalez Y Olga Brielle Cardona At the end of the split, the Supreme Judge Anthony Cuevas.

On January 29, the Cuevas were determined to be legal representation Manuel Nadal, Activist Citizens Success Movement (MVC). Once the challenging candidate receives a copy of the appeal, it calls into question the outcome of the election.

According to court documents, the announcement came three days after Nadal presented his challenge to the election on Jan. 17, as a solution to alleged fraud in the referendum, a new vote between early and non-voting voters.

Romero, in his movements for dismissal, argued that until January 21 – seven days after the challenge was filed – Natalie’s representatives sent a summons to the San Juan Municipality’s Legal Affairs Office, but the appellant did not do so.

Hernandez recalled that the Supreme Court had not yet explained the rules Article 10.15 New Election code, Which manages the challenge process and forms the basis of this jurisdiction controversy.

“Any candidate challenging the election of another candidate shall appear before a judge of the San Juan Judicial Zone appointed under Chapter Twelve of this Act and shall, within ten (10) days following the date on which the certificate is declared, a letter stating under oath the reasons for the election to each elected public office, challenging grounds. , It must be of such nature that, if proved, it is sufficient to change the outcome of the election.The true and accurate copy of the objection letter shall be communicated to the Challenged Candidate within five (5) days of its issuance ”, refers to the text of the disputed law, which the challenged candidate must submit Answer the challenge “within ten (10) days following the date you received the notice”.

“The notice, writing and response prescribed by this Act may be filled in by any competent person to testify, and shall be given in person to the respective parties, their electoral representatives, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, or at the residence or office of the person to whom they are addressing,” Article 10.15 adds.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeals held that “a careful analysis of section 10.15 indicates that the legislature avoided the use of the word summons and, instead, referred to the summary notice of the challenge by presenting it privately.”

Commenting on the arguments that the Supreme Court will consider jurisdictional disputes, and in the absence of a local judiciary in electoral matters, Hernandez said it would be “necessary from another jurisdiction (to analyze judgments) to seek writers and use appropriate approaches”.

Although the Rules of Civil Procedure give 30 days to go to the Supreme Court on appeal CertificateRomero would have to do this beforehand, Hernandez said, if he did not want to run the risk of starting a first instance court to assess the charges presented by Nadal based on their merits.

Once appealed, Hernandez said the maximum forum should not last long before a decision is reached.

“I do not see any similar incidents (delays) occurring. However, this is going to affect the performance of an acting mayor in one way or another, and considering the possibility that this situation may change, there is a possibility that the relative default that exists today could be changed,” said the former candidate. Sovereign Union Movement.

Hernandez does not rule out the possibility that the MVC candidate may try to carry out his claim if the Supreme Court issues a bad decision to Natal. Supreme Court of the United States, Under the argument that the alleged irregularities restricted the voting rights of San Juan voters.

Natalie’s challenge was to count 6,593 “illegal” municipal votes, which were counted more than the number of early and absent voters, due to the lack of evidence in the incident records or the fact that they had no folds.

Romero was certified mayor with 3,465 votes, of which Natal has a margin of nearly 6,000 votes in 77 units across the capital’s five boundaries, where early and non – early votes were counted.