ECUADOR'S ADMINISTRATION CHANGE: CONSTITUTIONAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L QUITO 000881

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/20/2015
TAGS: PGOV KDEM EC
SUBJECT: ECUADOR'S ADMINISTRATION CHANGE: CONSTITUTIONAL
OR NOT?

REF: QUITO 871 AND OTHERS

Classified By: Ambassador Kristie A. Kenney, Reason 1.4 (b)


1. (C) SUMMARY: Opinions differ here on whether Congress's
dismissal of ex-President Gutierrez was constitutional. In
play is whether Ecuador's supreme law required a simple or
two-thirds majority to remove the chief executive on
"abandonment of office" charges. With few demanding
Gutierrez's re-instatement, and given Ecuador's recent
history of changing presidents on borderline-legal grounds,
the issue seems more academic than relevant. END SUMMARY.


2. (U) Sixty Congressional deputies, assembling at offsite
location CIESPAL, voted April 20 to remove GoE President
Lucio Gutierrez, ushering in the succession of then-VP
Alfredo Palacio. The legislators cited Article 167, Section
6 of the Ecuadorian constitution, which states that "The
president of the republic will cease in his functions and
leave vacant his position for abandonment of office, declared
by Congress." Article 168 notes that in the absence of the
president, the vice president will serve out the term.


3. (U) As expected, pro- and anti-Gutierrez elements differ
on the legality of yesterday's events. Former Legal Adviser
Carlos Larrea considered Congress's move unconstitutional.
Article 130 gave the legislature power to remove the chief
executive via a political trial; that procedure required a
two-thirds vote (67 members) of Congress. As Article 167
also concerned the president's removal, but did not specify
the majority needed, the logical interpretation was that it
too required 67 votes. Larrea also disparaged the
"abandonment of office" grounds, noting the president was
working for a crisis solution until being forced to flee the
Presidential Palace.


4. (SBU) Social Christian Deputy and former Constitutional
Affairs Committee Chairman Luis Fernando Torres differed in
opinion. Articles 130 and 167 were distinct, he claimed, and
the framers purposely intended a lower bar for the
abandonment of power charge. Taking a different tack on
constitutional interpretation, Torres argued that, since the
drafters had not specified a special majority in Article 167,
than a simple majority would suffice. He claimed that
Ecuador's Constitutional Tribunal had ruled similarly after
the 1997 removal of Abdala Bucaram, although an older
constitution was then in force.


5. (C) COMMENT: Regrettably, Ecuador's constitutions are
best drafted in pencil, as open to interpretation by
politicians as courts. Both sides have offered compelling,
logical arguments regarding the constitutionality of the
April 20 presidential succession; we are torn between them.
Yet the question really is moot. Gutierrez is gone, for
example, and no one is calling for his return. Ecuador's
Constitutional Tribunal, a court that the former president
packed with supporters, may soon disband itself, and its
successor, likely staffed by the new majority, surely will
issue a ruling that legalizes the transition.
KENNEY