President Guillermo Lasso will stay in power until 2025, according to this night's vote in Ecuador.
After a final request for reconsideration of the vote, raised by the assemblyman, Juan Fernando Flores (BAN). There were no votes for changing the previous results of today's vote in the Ecuadorian National Assembly.
The blocs of the Christian Social Party (PSC), a part of the Democratic Left (ID), the Bank of the National Agreement (BAN), and independents voted against it, as they had announced.
The last effective 3RD VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION resulted in the following numbers of the motion of Assemblyman Fernando Cedeño that proposed the dismissal of the President of the Republic of Ecuador:
YES : 80 (58%)
NO : 48 (35%)
WHITE : 0 (0%)
ABSTENTION: 9 (7%)
TOTAL: 137 (100%)
The result of the opposition was worse than the previous effective vote asked by ID on a requested rectification. The last vote (for a second time) had these final results:
YES 84
NOT 42
WHITE 0
ABSTENTION 11
No one of the rectifications did obtain the 92 votes necessary (2/3 of the legislature)
The President of Ecuador will stay in power until 2025.
First Vote:
The vote for the impeachment of the President took place.
137 assembly members present
YES 81
NOT 42
NULL 0
ABSTENTIONS 14
The motion presented by UNES was not approved
"In order for the presidential impeachment request to prosper, the assent vote of 2/3 of the total assembly members is required. Both in the event that this vote is achieved and otherwise, there are consequences that are clear and others that will generate doubt and debate in the future:
1. If 2/3 are achieved, the following occurs:
1.1. The president ceases in office immediately and the vice president assumes the position.
1.2. The assembly continues in functions.
1.3. Elections for president and assembly members are called.
1.4. Both the dismissed president and the incumbent assembly members can be candidates, without being considered for re-election if they are elected (for the purpose of the limit of one re-election to elective dignities).
1.5. Doubt: are the president and vice elected (143 CE) or is it just the election of the president (130, final inc, CE)? Take into account that, normally, the president and vice are sworn in together (120.1 CE) but in this one it only says that the Pres-elect takes office and that the vice president was not removed.
1.6. The president who is elected (whether the one who was impeached or another) can no longer be subjected to another request for impeachment by cross-death (130, inc, 4th CE)
2. If the 2/3 is not achieved, it would seem that there are no difficulties: the head of state continues in office, as well as the assembly members, but there are also problems and doubts, some more reasonable than others, but doubts in the end:
2.1. Can the president dissolve the assembly after it fails to impeach him? In my opinion, yes, because the presidential power to dissolve is different from the parliamentary power to remove him, beyond the similarity of two of three causes (148 CE).
2.2. Can the assembly attempt a presidential impeachment or other dismissal? Yes. Impeachment and cessation are separate institutes, with different and unrelated causes (129 and 145 CE).
23. The most complicated: can the assembly try a new "cross death" even for the same cause? The constitution establishes that: "This power may be exercised only once during the legislative period" (130, inc 4o, CE). Here comes the next “chiaroscuro”:
2.3.1. It can be argued that the impediment to exercising "the same power" only occurs if the president was removed (supra 1.6) and not if it was not achieved, since, in this case, he would not have "exercised the power."
2.3.2. Estimate that the mere fact of submitting the request for dismissal and voting on it, already implied the exercise of the power and that it is a different thing that the result sought by the applicants has not been reached.
3. The most widespread doubt has been whether the president can dissolve the assembly (148 CE) while the impeachment request is pending (130 CE):
3.1. The Ecuadorian Constitution does not have an impediment rule as others such as the Spanish have (the process of confidence in the president of the government has begun, he cannot dissolve parliament), so it could work like this.
3.2. But it can be said that the rule of express impediment is not necessary, since dissolving the assembly while processing the request for dismissal would imply interpreting a rule of the CE to render another one null and void (systematic canon 427 CE, 3.5 LOGJCC and 18.4 Civil Code )
4. These and other doubts will be present after knowing the result. For the most part, the arguments will be based on the desired result for each group. Making such dark rules, even with politicians like ours, is a real danger".
SOURCE:
Comentarios