The Administrative Court of Huila declared proven the exception called “absence of structural elements of the cause for annulment”, proposed by the plaintiff, and also denied the claims of the lawsuit that consists of the annulment of the election of the deputy of the Assembly. Departmental Virgilio Hüergo Gómez for allegedly engaging in double militancy.
Johan Eduardo Rojas López
A ruling by the Fourth Decision Chamber somehow distorted, in the first instance, the reasons for the lawsuit filed by Luis Alberto Escobar Garzón and ruled in favor of the current deputy of the Green Alliance Party, Virgilio Hüergo Gómez, who was re-elected to the constitutional period 2024-2027.
Double militancy?
According to the plaintiff, the politician during the campaign did not support the candidates of his party, in fact including the coavalados, since allegedly, for the governorship of Huila, he supported Rodrigo Villalva Mosquera, of the Liberal party and not Rodrigo Lara Sánchez, who Since July 26, 2023, it has entered into a coalition with the Green Alliance party. And, according to Escobar Garzón, that was public knowledge from the beginning of the electoral contest.
He also maintains in the lawsuit that Hüergo Gómez did not support the candidate for Mayor of Campoalegre co-endorsed by his party, who in this case would be Víctor Ramon Vargas Salazar, and instead, supported the liberal candidate Oscar Alberto Cuéllar Medina.
Something similar happened in Gigante, where he gave his support to the candidate endorsed by the Liberal and Radical Change party, Josué Manrique Murcia; instead of supporting Kevin David Arriguí Vargas, who was co-sponsored by the Alianza Verde party.
As if that were not enough, according to what was stated by the plaintiff, the current deputy “supported and teamed up” with several liberals, among them: Helmut Falla Osorio (candidate for Mayor of Baraya), Gerson Osorio Rivera (candidate for the Council of Baraya) , Alexander Martínez (candidate for Mayor of Colombia) and Humberto Alvarado Guzmán (candidate for Mayor of Rivera). In Tello, he supported Fernando Alipio, as a candidate for Mayor for the “Tello deserves more” movement, and in Paicol, Aníbal Chavarro Chantre, candidate for Mayor for the “People First” movement.
“In private, public and mass meetings, he proselytized in favor of candidates not endorsed by the Green Alliance party. The defendant’s double militancy is public knowledge in the department and was widely recorded by the media,” reads within the factual basis of the ruling.
In opposition to the claims
As expected, the deputy opposed the success of the claims, given that, according to his argument, the requirements required for the grounds for nullity of double militancy to be established are not met.
He said that, regarding the subjective aspects, in the majority of the facts the defendant does not specifically specify the conduct displayed by him and, nor did he analyze, whether the Green Alliance party had its own candidate for the aforementioned mayoralties. Therefore, he believes that the objective element “is conspicuous by its absence.”
Regarding the issue of his support for the candidate for the Governor of Huila, he pointed out that “the plaintiff deduces the same from the action that he described as petty on the part of my client when he refused to grant endorsement or coaval in favor of who was later a candidate for that community to the Government of Huila, Dr. Rodrigo Lara Sánchez. A temporary condition, derived from the date on which the press conference and press releases were held on July 25 and 26 respectively, a date on which the deadline for granting endorsements by the parties had not even closed and in accordance with The electoral calendar expired on July 29, 2023.”
He also explained that compared to the photograph that was allegedly taken from Javier Monje’s networks, it is not possible to show that it is a campaign event sponsored by Rodrigo Villalba Mosquera and the content of the intervention of the person who appears in it is not verified. the photograph, in order to confirm that it was not only a campaign event, but that he also held demonstrations of support. That would be supported, so to speak, by reference to the fact that Hüergo Gómez is an opposition deputy to the Departmental Government.
With all this, the representative of the representative expressed that there is no doubt that his client did not execute, carry out or carry out any type of act of proselytism.
And the municipalities?
According to what was stated by the defendant’s lawyer, the evidence at this point is far from being able to reveal an act of double militancy and, therefore, the configuration of the cause for annulment of his election is ruled out. In the case of Gigante, it is alleged that the evidentiary material is from March 2023 when Mr. Manrique Murcia did not even know which parties he would be endorsed by. Along these lines, “it is not possible to reveal double militancy from activities or meetings that took place well in advance.”
“On the specific point, it should be noted that the material reveals the non-existence of the cause invoked, since in those it is not possible to detect any act of support or accompaniment by Hüergo Gómez to the aforementioned candidate Villalba Mosquera. On the contrary, all of them are aimed at persuading the electorate to vote for my client, without it being possible to deduce that there was an alliance or hidden agreement,” reads the ruling regarding the Baraya case.
In the specific case of Rivera, it is alleged that there was no candidate of his own, nor co-validators and, therefore, he was authorized to support candidates from other communities. Same case happened in Paicol. Finally, and in relation to the aforementioned municipalities, it is indicated that much of the evidence provided corresponds to actions or interventions carried out before the candidate registration process.
They join the demand
Given all this panorama, on April 24, 2024, Nelson Osorio Otálora and Patricia Valenzuela Buitrago, requested to be accepted as active interveners; arguing that the defendant engaged in double militancy. On April 25, 2024, the initial hearing was held, followed by a hearing of evidence and transfer of allegations.
There they considered that in the press conference held on July 25, 2023 by the directors of the Green party at the departmental level, the alienation of the defendant with the political project of Rodrigo Villalba Mosquera and his relationship with candidacies of that party was noted. In addition, Helmut Falla Osorio, Josué Manrique Murcia and Fernando Alipio Solano benefited from the “support” of the Green party.
Deny the claims
The Public Ministry then requested to deny the claims because the evidence presented does not account for participation in meetings or acts of political proselytism in which the defendant participated as a candidate for the departmental duma and expressed his support for candidates for the Government of Huila, mayors. or Council. Furthermore, it is not possible to determine the circumstances of time, manner and place in which the evidence that came out, many of it, from third-party social networks, was captured.
It is important to remember that, in the initial hearing, the reporting magistrate abstained from decreeing the aforementioned resolution as evidence (link provided by the interveners); because the request became untimely and the unofficial incorporation was denied. And throughout the entire process, the plaintiff failed to prove the claims.
In the case of the candidacy for the Governor of Huila, the Chamber considers that unlike what is stated in the complaint, the evidence provided does not prove that the defendant expressly supported the candidacy endorsed by the Liberal Party of Rodrigo Villalba Mosquera. Likewise, the evidence in the case of Baraya, Gigante, Campoalegre, Hobo, Colombia, Paicol, Rivera and Tello, is not strong enough to grant the claims.
This is how they conclude that the requirements that constitute the cause of electoral nullity due to double militancy in the support modality were not proven; “so that the claims of the claim are not destined to succeed since the exception of absence of structural elements of the grounds for annulment is accepted.”
“I’m quiet”
After this first decision, the deputy, in dialogue with LA NACIÓN, explained that he is calm given that together with his legal team they were confident that everything would turn out well. “I thank the legal team for representing our interests and those of thousands of Huilenses who, with their vote, gave us the opportunity to revalidate the credential; the same one that we will continue to put at the service of our department to work day and night to improve the quality of life of the Opitas,” he said.
Although it is still unknown exactly if the plaintiff will resort to any appeal, Hüergo Gómez clarified that “we trust in God and in the defense that he will continue to exercise, hoping that, if there is any appeal, justice will once again rule in his favor.” “Both in my private life and in my public life I have always acted with rectitude and adhered to the law and institutions, therefore, we were always calm,” he concluded.
 • La Nación){kind=link}