Some Chavista officials, including Minister of Education Aristobulo Isturiz and Deputy Cilia Flores made statements last Friday that if the CNE rejected the request for the recall referendum on the part of the opposition, then the opposition would not be able to submit another request because Article 72 of the Venezuelan Constitution says that only one request for a recall can be introduced during the period of an elected official. This has created a lot of frustration and uncertainty within the opposition, and I have even heard people saying that why should they waste their time if the new request might be rejected. (I fault the press partially for this, as the questioning by these ignorant Government officials was quickly propagated by some equally ignorant reporters). This issue was indeed clarified by the Venezuelan Supreme Court on June 2nd. 2002 in a decision that leaves very little room for interpretation. Here is the text, the highlights are mine, in both Spanish and my very liberal English translation (more so when it is a judicial decision). Please distribute it by e-mail so that people are aware of it:
“Igualmente, estima esta Sala desacertado el planteamiento efectuado por los recurrentes, cuando solicitaron se interpretara el último aparte del artículo 72 de la Constitución, con respecto a que “no podrá hacerse más de una solicitud de revocación”, por cuanto pese a que insisten en que ha surgido en ellos la duda interpretativa, lo cierto es que se advierte que la referida solicitud de interpretación constitucional no se apega a los lineamientos establecidos por la jurisprudencia antes transcrita. Al respecto, considera la Sala que el último aparte de la disposición mencionada es claro y preciso, y no posee ninguna contradicción o ambigüedad, toda vez que cuando establece que en todo caso no puede hacerse más de una solicitud de revocación del mandato durante el período para el cual fue elegido el funcionario o funcionaria, es palmario que se refiere a que dicha solicitud haya sido efectuada en cumplimiento de los requerimientos que la propia norma constitucional exige y, por ende, declarada su procedencia por el órgano electoral, dado que la solicitud que no reúna esos requisitos, no produce efectos ni puede considerarse válida y, menos aún, como impedimento o límite para la recepción y tramitación de una nueva solicitud de convocatoria a referéndum revocatorio. En definitiva, el límite que la norma establece se halla en que se celebre o active sólo un referéndum revocatorio para el mismo funcionario y en el mismo mandato. Por consiguiente, estima la Sala que la solicitud planteada en el sentido señalado no es susceptible de interpretación alguna, resultando de esta manera improcedente el recurso de interpretación constitucional en cuanto a dicha pretensión se refiere, y así se declara.”
Liberal English Translation:
Similarly, this Hall considers incorrect the proposition made by the plaintifs, when they requested that we interpret the last part of Article 72 of the Constitution with respect to whether “no more than one request can be made for a recall referendum”, because even if they insist that there is a doubt in interpretation, the truth is that the request for a constitutional interpretation does not fulfill the requirements established by prior jurisprudence. To that effect the Hall considers that the last part of the article is clear and precise and has no contradiction or ambiguity, because when it establishes that no more than one request for a recall referendum may be made during the period for which the official is elected to, it is clear that it refers to the fact that such a request has been made fulfilling the regulations that the Constitutional norm requires and thus has been accepted by the electoral board, since a request that does not fulfill the requirements, produces no effects nor can be considered valid, even less is an impediment or limit to process a new request for a recall referendum. In concluding, the limit that the norm establishes is in that only one recall referendum be activated or take place for the same elected official in the same period. Thus, the request is not susceptible to be interpreted …”
Thus any other interpretation seems to me be absolutely out of the question. Pass it on!
(Even the foreign press has fallen for the Chavista line, as reported by the LA Times, sent in by Russel)
The Devil's Excrement 
Leave a comment