Hipolito Mejia asks TC to annul sentence that validates his expulsion
Diario Libre
SD. Former President Hipolito Mejia and the other three leaders of the Dominican Revolutionary Party (PRD), requested the Constitutional Tribunal to annul the sentence handed down by the Superior Electoral Tribunal (TSE), which validated the resolutions by which they were judged and punished during a trial held by the National Disciplinary Council.
Mejia and Andres Bautista, both expelled from the PRD by the faction led by Miguel Vargas Maldonado, and the suspended secretary general and the secretary of Organization, Orlando Jorge Mera and Geanilda Vasquez, filed yesterday an appeal for a revision of the sentence TSE-003-2013.
Besides annulling the TSE decision, they are asking the TC to order the return of the file to the secretary of the first, with the idea that they proceed to hold a new trial.
The requests, signed by lawyers Enmanuel Esquea Guerrero, Julio Peña Guzman, Eduardo Sanz Lovaton, Sigmund Freund Mena, Ramon Hernandez Dominguez, Dario de Jesus, Rafael Mejia Guerrero and Angel Encarnacion, were filed with the TSE.
They said they feel that the sentence of 25 January by the high court was against the Constitution, alleging that they omitted the protection of fundamental rights, by rejecting the demand for annulment filed by them against the Third, Fourth and Fifth resolution of the meeting of the PRD National Executive Committee held on 3 June 2012.
They say that they were judged and punished in violation of the right to a public, oral, and adversarial trials, on equal terms and with respect to the right of a defense, as protected in paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Constitution.
The right to be judged before a competent judge or a tribunal and with the observance of the full extension of the formalities of each trial, as ordered in numeral 7 of Article 69 of the Constitution. Also the right to the presumption of innocence until there is an irrevocable sentence, according to what is established in numeral 3 of Article 69 of the Constitution.
They also argue that there was a violation of the rights acquired, according to what is indicated by Article 110 of the Constitution, among others.
The plaintiffs argue that the principle of invalidation was mercilessly violated by the TSE when it corrected and validated to the prejudice of Mejia, Bautista, Jorge Mera and Vasquez, the right to be cited with a prudent period of time for the preparation of their defense measures.
They said that the TSE failed to recognize their right to due process, by denying to nullify the punishments that were applied to them in a process in which they were denied their rights. The appeal says that they based the rejection of their request for the application of Article 30 of the General Statutes of the PRD, and forgetting the Electoral Law.
The plaintiffs argue that due process takes into account the right of the persons on trial to know the reasoning of the sentences that decide the cases in which they are a party. They say that this has been recognized by the Constitutional Tribunal in their sentence TC/0009/13 of last 11 February.
"The best demonstration of the lack of reasoning in the sentence under appeal is the recently filed suggestion made with respect to the lack of acknowledgement of the Electoral Law. They say that the tribunal admits that they were requested to apply Article 26 of this law, but they rejected this with no explanation."
Mejia and Andres Bautista, both expelled from the PRD by the faction led by Miguel Vargas Maldonado, and the suspended secretary general and the secretary of Organization, Orlando Jorge Mera and Geanilda Vasquez, filed yesterday an appeal for a revision of the sentence TSE-003-2013.
Besides annulling the TSE decision, they are asking the TC to order the return of the file to the secretary of the first, with the idea that they proceed to hold a new trial.
The requests, signed by lawyers Enmanuel Esquea Guerrero, Julio Peña Guzman, Eduardo Sanz Lovaton, Sigmund Freund Mena, Ramon Hernandez Dominguez, Dario de Jesus, Rafael Mejia Guerrero and Angel Encarnacion, were filed with the TSE.
They said they feel that the sentence of 25 January by the high court was against the Constitution, alleging that they omitted the protection of fundamental rights, by rejecting the demand for annulment filed by them against the Third, Fourth and Fifth resolution of the meeting of the PRD National Executive Committee held on 3 June 2012.
They say that they were judged and punished in violation of the right to a public, oral, and adversarial trials, on equal terms and with respect to the right of a defense, as protected in paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Constitution.
The right to be judged before a competent judge or a tribunal and with the observance of the full extension of the formalities of each trial, as ordered in numeral 7 of Article 69 of the Constitution. Also the right to the presumption of innocence until there is an irrevocable sentence, according to what is established in numeral 3 of Article 69 of the Constitution.
They also argue that there was a violation of the rights acquired, according to what is indicated by Article 110 of the Constitution, among others.
The plaintiffs argue that the principle of invalidation was mercilessly violated by the TSE when it corrected and validated to the prejudice of Mejia, Bautista, Jorge Mera and Vasquez, the right to be cited with a prudent period of time for the preparation of their defense measures.
They said that the TSE failed to recognize their right to due process, by denying to nullify the punishments that were applied to them in a process in which they were denied their rights. The appeal says that they based the rejection of their request for the application of Article 30 of the General Statutes of the PRD, and forgetting the Electoral Law.
The plaintiffs argue that due process takes into account the right of the persons on trial to know the reasoning of the sentences that decide the cases in which they are a party. They say that this has been recognized by the Constitutional Tribunal in their sentence TC/0009/13 of last 11 February.
"The best demonstration of the lack of reasoning in the sentence under appeal is the recently filed suggestion made with respect to the lack of acknowledgement of the Electoral Law. They say that the tribunal admits that they were requested to apply Article 26 of this law, but they rejected this with no explanation."
Diario Libre
Continuar con Google