|
|
|
|
|
|
What is good for the goose is good for the gander For the last few days, the local press has been rich in details on the existing conflict between the Supreme Court of Justice and the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. This conflict is the result of the relief sought by a group of famous and honest citizens who are or were directors of the Central Bank of Venezuela, as a preliminary motion to the action for annulment, by reason of being unconstitutional, of paragraph 15, article 113 of the new Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. It is a well known fact that the controlling agency, with ground on the above quoted legal provision, ruled that there had been administrative liability against persons who had been members of the Financial Emergency Board, by reason of the financial assistance given to the Latinoamericana-Progreso Group. The Supreme Court of Justice granted the motion for relief and ordered the Comptroller General to refrain from continuing the investigation of the issue pending the decision on the annulment of the above referred paragraph 15, article 113. Without giving any opinion on the unconstitutional nature of the legal provision, we do observe that there was an apparent retroactive application thereof. The Supreme Court of Justice, it is our belief, had sufficient grounds to grant the relief. But if we do recognize when law is applied, we may not fail to observe that, in the past, annulment actions have been brought to the Court, against administrative action by the Office of the Comptroller General -including preliminary motions for relief- by reason of unconstitutionality and illegality. These actions and motions did not get the same treatment, nor have they been decided so quickly. Reinaldo Figueredo Planchart, on November 10, 1993, faced with the impossibility to defend himself against the accusations contained in the report made as a result of the "documentary investigation" carried out by the controlling agency in relation with alleged misuse of secret security and defense funds, file action for annulment of that report, considering that it was illegal and unconstitutional, since it was based on an inquiry where the investigates officers did not know the charges against them, nor were they allowed to defend themselves. The Court, more than nine months after, denied the relief in view of the fact that it was "too late to repair the damage". The case of the Financial Emergency Board's members is somehow similar, with the difference that they, as opposed to Figueredo, could defend themselves during the administrative inquiry. Unfortunately for the rule of law, what was good for the goose was not good for the gander. Without failing to acknowledge that everything must be done, legally, to avoid that, under political motives, there may be another trial, under any pretext, against the President of the Republic, we must say that, when -under political motives, in violation of due process and of the right of defense, and with lack of judicial autonomy and independence- former President Carlos Andrés Pérez was convicted, the Court sustained the pretension of Prosecutor General Badell González that the President of the Republic is the supreme administrator of all public moneys and that, as such, it is his duty to "administer the Public Treasury", thus being liable for all actions of all public officers. It is likely that, when pretending to try high ranking officers of this administration, a road is being sought to try, eventually, President Caldera. Let us hope that Pandora's Box, opened with CAP's conviction, will be closed and that, this time what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. |
|
Copyright Venezuela Analitica |