the Core Question: Judicial Independence

What intrinsic value does judicial independence hold, particularly when considering the composition and function of a nation’s Supreme Court of Justice?

Constitutional Precedents and International Standards

The Argentine Supreme Court, through precedents established in cases such as “Rosza,” “Rizzo,” “Aparicio,” and “Uriarte,” has consistently affirmed the critical importance of judicial independence. These rulings underscore the necessity of adhering to the procedures outlined in the Argentine Constitution for the appointment of judges, viewing it as a cornerstone of the separation of powers.

Comply with the procedure provided by the Argentine Constitution for the designation of magistrates and magistrates constitutes one of the essential pillars of the division of powers on which the Argentine Republic is based on and the Argentine Republic is based on and inspired by the Argentine Republic. institutional, in order to prevent the predominance of subaltern interests on the supreme interest of justice and law

Argentine Supreme Court Precedents

This framework aims to safeguard the impartiality of judges, ensuring decisions are made solely in the interest of justice and the rights of individuals.

Argentina’s constitutional framework is further reinforced by international human rights instruments,which have been granted constitutional status. These instruments enshrine the right of every individual to be heard by a competent, self-reliant, and impartial judge or court. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has interpreted this right as a essential pillar of due process guarantees.

These reinforced guarantees are essential to prevent undue restrictions on the judiciary by external bodies, ensuring the judicial system and its members can function without coercion.

Appointments “In Commission”: A Closer Look

What level of independence can be attributed to a judge appointed to the Supreme Court “in commission?”

From a legal standpoint, a commission implies a formal mandate granted to an individual to carry out a specific task or intervene in particular matters. The individual acting on the commission assumes the role of commissioner, responsible for fulfilling the mandate.

In this context:

• The President initiates the commission.
• The appointed judge fulfills the mandate.

The one who commission is the president and the one who fulfills the mandate the judge appointed in commission.

However, questions arise regarding the appointee’s independence before full Senate confirmation.

He is not an independant magistrate (A de facto judge as Sánchez Viamonte argued) until the Senate Chamber validates the designation providing the agreement with an aggravated majority of the two thirds of the members present.

The Implications of Senate Rejection

if the Senate rejects the appointment of a judge serving “in commission,” that individual effectively becomes an employee of the Executive Branch, serving on the Supreme Court solely at the President’s discretion.

In the event that the senate Chamber rejects the statement of a commission judge, it automatically becomes an employee of the Executive Power “Commissioner” to integrate the Supreme Court of Justice without any possible independence being exclusively backed by the will of the President of the Nation.

This scenario raises serious concerns about the judge’s impartiality and the integrity of the court.

The Case of Dr. Manuel García-Mansilla

The rejection of Dr. Manuel García-Mansilla’s qualifications through the standard constitutional process for judicial appointments raises concerns about his independence and impartiality while serving in the position.

The rejection of the specifications of dr.Manuel García-Manilla in the framework of the regular process for the designation of the judges established by the Argentine Constitution, inhibits it of the slightest independence and impartiality for the exercise of the position of the position by covering the character of judge commissioned by the Executive Power that will be confirmed by the Senate.

His continued presence on the court, under these circumstances, could lead to challenges to the validity of court decisions and erode public trust in the judiciary.

The situation could precipitate a crisis within the Supreme Court, undermining its legitimacy and the public’s confidence in its decisions.

Its stubborn permanence in court will not onyl generate multiple nullity proposals in various reasons producing a deep crisis in the functioning of the Supreme Court of Justice, but also, a break of trust and legitimacy with the universe of the justices.

A Call for Constitutional Integrity

A judge appointed “in commission” whose qualifications are afterward rejected should, out of respect for the Argentine Constitution, resign from the position.

A judge appointed in commission onc rejected the specifications must have sufficient nobility to promptly renounce the position of the republic and the full validity of the Argentine Constitution.

This act would uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.