The president of the Panameñista Party, José Isabel Blandón, has filed an unconstitutionality lawsuit against the ruling of the Electoral Court (TE), which maintains criminal jurisdiction against Ricardo Martinelli.

Blandón described this ruling as a legal bomb since, in an issue of electoral jurisdiction, the TE went on to resolve issues that correspond to the Supreme Court of Justice, such as the principle of specialty.

He argued that the Panameñista Party has been clear in opposing the electoral criminal jurisdiction as it was raised in the last Electoral Reform, but that beyond whether or not the Electoral Criminal Jurisdiction fits, what worries them is the attitude of the magistrates of the Court Electoral that come to see issues that are not their responsibility and calls into question the credibility of an institution that has been fundamental in Panama’s democracy.

Lawyer Porfirio Batista, Prosecutor of the Panameñista Party, explained that the magistrates of the Electoral Tribunal (Alfredo Juncá and Heriberto Araúz) committed an outburst and exceeded their functions since they resolved a criminal matter and their jurisdiction is clearly Electoral since the principle of specialty It is the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal courts.

“They have to deal with the issue that if the person whose electoral jurisdiction is intended to be lifted is within an internal process and that this process could affect their internal aspirations, but what happens is that here there are two processes that we all know as the Odebrecht and New Business Case that began investigations in 2015, so getting to know the background on all old case the specialty principles does not correspond to the Electoral Court, ”.

This is the second claim of unconstitutionality against the ruling of the Electoral Court that maintains the electoral criminal jurisdiction of Martinelli.

The first was presented by the lawyer Héctor Herrera, whose action has already been formally admitted by the Judicial Branch.

The Supreme Court of confirmed that the rapporteur in the process is the president of the Supreme Court María Eugenia López who in her capacity as rapporteur, admitted the lawsuit of unconstitutionality presented by  Herrera.

In their Resolution of March 22, 2022, Araúz and Juncá considered Martinelli's defense argument valid, who alleges that he enjoys the protection of the specialty principle, established in the 1904 Extradition Treaty with the United States. Judge Eduardo Valdés Escoffery saved his vote.

Speed challenged
On, April 1, the Attorney General (in charge), Javier Caraballo, warned that the Resolution of March 22 violates at least five articles of the Constitution. Caraballo's opinion is in a document that he sent to Judge López Arias, as part of the processing of Herrera's lawsuit.

 Alfredo Vallarino, Martinelli's lawyer, questioned Caraballo's "speed" in answering the query made by López Arias. According to him, Caraballo answered the query in less than a day.

"I challenge the Supreme Court to present me, in 100 years, an appeal of unconstitutionality that has been admitted, distributed, and distributed to the Attorney General of the Nation and answered in less than a day," Vallarino emphasized.