Deputy Camila Musante (ind-PPD) reiterated the urgency of processing the project that reforms the mechanism for appointing ministers and judges of the country’s highest courts, after the latest leaks of conversations linked to appointments in the Judiciary.
The constitutional reform project aims to change the current appointment system, creating a Council of Justice, a body that is incorporated by members of the Executive, the Legislative, the Judicial Branch and law professors.
In conversation with The counterthe parliamentarian delved into the need to open the debate in the National Congress in light of the antecedents and made an invitation to the Minister of Justice, Luis Cordero, to “give legislative urgency to this project.”
“I disagree a little with this installation that we are all very much in agreement with. It seems that this is common sense, but no one puts it on the table. Let’s leave opinion as a way of doing politics, (…) we are here to carry out our parliamentary work,” he said.
-What does this project consist of and what are the modifications it proposes?
-I am the author of a constitutional reform that modifies the current system of appointment of judges and ministers of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, through the creation of a Judicial Council. It would be a constitutionally autonomous body, made up of members of the Executive Branch, members of the Legislative Branch, members of the Judicial Branch, and prominent academics from law schools. This integration would occur through senior public management to guarantee standards of probity and transparency.
Another element that characterizes the Judicial Council is this counterbalance of the different powers of the State. Because today, for example, in the appointment of Supreme Court ministers, a shortlist is drawn up by the Senate and which ends up defining the President of the Republic. So there we have a high level of political influence, without a counterweight from another power of the State that can warn of the interests that may lie behind it. Even I decided to add an external element to the powers of the State, such as the outstanding academics from the law schools of our country.
In addition, there is another positive effect with this project and it is the need to separate two functions of the Judiciary. There is a function that is called jurisdictional, it is what we know as the administration of justice, hearing a case, ruling on it, until the final sentence, and that has to be located absolutely in the judges and ministers. However, the administrative functions associated with the Judicial Branch, for example, appointing ministers of the Court of Appeals, of the Supreme Court, which has to do with the career of the judicial academy, that selection regarding who tomorrow will be judges or judges, among other functions, have to be separated. In this way we generate independence in decision-making, that is, those who are deciding who are going to be the judges and ministers in Chile are not the ones who are ruling or issuing a sentence in a corruption case, for example.
-The idea has been established that there is a consensus on the need for the appointment system to be modified. How has the reception of your project been by the Supreme Court and the Association of Magistrates? What feedback have you received regarding something that everyone seems to agree on but so far no action has been taken?
-I disagree a little with this installation, which we are all very much in agreement with. It seems that this is something of common sense, Minister Cordero thinks it is fine, it seems fine to the opposition deputies, it seems fine to the president of the Constitution Commission, Miguel Ángel Calisto, but no one puts it on the table. Let’s leave opinion as a way of doing politics, because we deputies are not here to give opinions or give statements to the press, we are there to carry out our parliamentary work.
So, if we have identified a conflict that occurs within the appointment of judges, which opens room for corruption, let us reform the way in which ministers are appointed today. There is the project, some deputies accompanied me on that, the president of the Chamber of Deputies herself signed the project, Deputy Cariola, we held a meeting with Minister Cordero, I asked Deputy Calisto to put it on the committee table of the Constitution, and has already passed the admissibility test.
In that I have a criticism, because I think there are many bombastic statements, good spots for the press, but let’s move on to action and discuss the constitutional reform. It has not yet been put on the table, therefore, as long as these consensuses do not mean we have a serious debate and reform the Judiciary to be able to clean it up once and for all, I am really going to be left with the impression that they are only statements to the press.
-Minister Luis Cordero has indicated that it is necessary to review the entire appointment system in the Judiciary, not only what concerns the issue of the Supreme Court, could this be the gateway to starting a more structural debate?
-Of course. Within the conversations that we have had with Minister Cordero and the support he gave to this project when we met in the presidency of the Chamber of Deputies with the sponsors of this constitutional reform, it is because he has a clear intention to go further. He perfectly understands a need to reform the Judiciary, he understands that here we cannot simply stop at the appointment of ministers, and that this council should have many other powers.
So this is the front door. Now, I would invite Minister Cordero, since it seems good to him and it seems that we are on the same line, to put legislative urgency on a project like this, so that we open the discussion and begin to debate not only about the appointment of the judges, but also about what a Judicial Council could do, how we begin to generate this independence. We have to establish standards that guarantee that impartiality.
-Another thing that the Minister of Justice has pointed out is that no matter how much we manage to modify the appointment system, if inappropriate communication practices are maintained to promote certain candidates, we still have a problem.
-I very much agree, and here I also think that the minister hits the nail on the head with a question that is fundamental when it comes to legislating: what comes first, the cultural change or the norm?
I’m going to take you to another matter that has to do with the use of single-use plastic bags. No one in Chile had the habit of carrying a supermarket bag to shop, that did not exist, it was not part of our idiosyncrasy, nor of our culture as consumers. But it was established by law that they were going to stop being delivered to supermarkets and, therefore, we had no choice but to get used to it.
For example, if disqualification sanctions are established for ministers who engage in these conversation practices that are aimed at generating influence trafficking or impact on the appointment, would this cultural practice of the Judiciary continue? I have my serious doubts. So in this I do not stop believing in the power of the law and the norm, because we have many precedents in our country that there is no culture on a certain subject, but when legislation is legislated about it, prohibitions or sanctions are even established, There is no choice but to change the culture.
-What expectations do you have from the extraordinary plenary session of the Supreme Court regarding this issue? Would you expect some type of stronger signal?
-I expect a signal that is not only powerful, but also unequivocal signals. By this I mean that the Judiciary gets behind a reform like the one we have presented, to once and for all put an end to these cultural practices of influencing the appointment of judges and ministers. And that they also give a signal to the country that they respond to citizen interests when they have to rule on a case, and not that they are responding to those who appointed them when issuing a final sentence.
I want to highlight here the work of the National Association of Magistrates, because they contacted me and my team when we presented this constitutional reform project, saying that it was extremely necessary to advance an initiative of these characteristics. There are many judges who want judicial work to be carried out with absolute independence, but unfortunately we have seen that appointments at the summits, including the Supreme Court and Appeals Court, do not allow progress within the internal structure of the Judiciary.
Therefore, today the Supreme Court has the responsibility to give a clear and unequivocal signal to the country that they are willing to exercise justice blindly, that they do not respond to a call or a hand-picked appointment.
