Judge's Reportedly Critical Report Kicks Off Debate on

S E C R E T BOGOTA 000149 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/04 TAGS: PGOV KDEM PREL KJUS PINR PHUM CO SUBJECT: Judge's Reportedly Critical Report Kicks Off Debate on Reelection REF: BOGOTA 145 CLASSIFIED BY: Mark A. Wells, Political Counselor; REASON: 1.4(B), (D) ¶1. (SBU) Constitutional Court Judge Humberto Sierra presented his legal analysis on the constitutionality of the presidential reelection referendum to the other eight members of the Court on February 3 in a closed session. Although the report is supposed to be confidential for five years, even before the session ended that evening, media and other reports began to surface saying the "400-page" report's gist was that the Court should declare the referendum unviable due to a series of procedural irregularities from the initial signature drive through the congressional consideration of the initiative. Sierra reportedly believes the Court should focus on the legality of the process and not on whether a third term could supplant the Constitution, but his colleagues could raise the substantive aspects of the referendum during the Court's debate. ¶2. (SBU) The cited irregularities reportedly include: the maximum spending limits in the signature collection drive were exceeded, a special session of the House was held to vote on the referendum without first publishing a notice in the Federal Register, five congressmen from the Radical Change party voted for the referendum in violation of party instructions to vote against it, the Congress modified the text of the referendum question to specify a third consecutive term (i.e. 2010 election) rather than initial vague language indicating a non-consecutive term (i.e. 2014 election), and the Congress began deliberations before the national Registrar issued its certification. In his January 12 report to the Court, Inspector General Alejandro Ordonez pointed out many of the same irregularities but opined they were not enough to prevent a vote by the people (see reftel). ¶3. (S) The Court's Secretary General, Martha Sachica, told Deputy Polcouns on February 4 that she and all the judges were under instructions not to share the contents of the report as it was part of a deliberative process that had just begun. She confirmed that the report was presented February 3 and that the Court would make its final ruling as quickly as possible in the interest of reducing electoral uncertainty. Press reports indicate the first of biweekly (as opposed to the normal weekly) closed Court sessions to debate the referendum's constitutionality will take place on February 11, and that one of the Court's first tasks will be to decide whether to allow public submissions during its debate. Sachica stressed that the report was a starting point for discussion prepared by one of the nine judges and not an indication of the Court's inclination. Judge Sierra is seen as independent from President Uribe, has a history of valuing constitutionally-mandated procedures, and had been rumored to oppose the reelection referendum even before he prepared his report. Indications are that the Court is narrowly split on the issue, so its ruling could go either way: effectively killing the reelection referendum and a third consecutive Uribe term, or allowing the referendum to be held. ¶4. (SBU) During the same February 3 session, the Court denied a private citizen's motion to require Judge Mauricio Gonzalez to abstain from its vote on the referendum (because his ex-wife performed consulting work for the GOC),so all nine judges can vote when the time comes. The nine judges are: Nilson Pinilla (Court President),Mauricio Gonzalez (Vice President),Humberto Sierra, Luis Ernesto Vargas, Jorge Ivan Palacio, Gabriel Mendoza, Juan Carlos Henao, Maria Victoria Calle, and Jorge Pretelt. Gonzalez, Calle and Pretelt were nominated by President Uribe; Pinilla, Vargas and Palacio were nominated by the Supreme Court; and Sierra, Mendoza and Henao were nominated by the State Council. BROWNFIELD