(MENAFN- Newsroom Panama) Ricardo Martinelli's defense presented an Appeal for Reconsideration before the Electoral Court, where they claim to revoke the agreement of March 4th that disqualified him as a candidate for President of Panama and as a deputy.
In an extensive writing, lawyer Alejandro Pérez warned that Judge Baloisa Marquínez may have committed the crime of falsehood by stating that the mixed sentence in the New Business case was enforceable, when it is not final, because the situation of six acquitted defendants' remains to be defined, whose fate pending appeals will be presented by the Prosecutor's Office.
Alejandro Pérez alerted judges Eduardo Valdés Escoffery, Alfredo Juncá and Luis Guerra, who may act in the same manner as Baloisa Marquínez, by accepting a falsehood as valid.
He also warned that since Martinelli's nominations are firm, there is no provision in the Electoral Code that allows them to cancel Martinelli's nomination, unless he wins and his proclamation is challenged.
In the brief, it is highlighted that in the agreement of judges Valdés, Juncá and Guerra there is no reference to electoral jurisprudence to disqualify Martinelli's candidacy... no reference is made to any jurisprudence.
Pérez also cites that articles 615 and 620 establish aspects of disqualification that begin with electoral administrative prosecutors and electoral administrative judges.
They also highlight that the second instance is the plenary session before the magistrates.
They also point to the statements of Judge Valdés on February 4th in "Open Debate", where he warns of the double instance and then the Electoral Court itself issues two statements reiterating this double instance.
The Reconsideration maintains that the plenary session of the magistrates is not the competent authority in the first instance to abrogate knowledge of the disqualification process.
Another aspect that is pointed out is the non-compliance with article 645 of the Electoral Code, which states that Martinelli must be notified personally and, as an asylum seeker, it must be processed through the Chancellery.
Furthermore, it is noted that the due process of the double instance was not complied with.
MENAFN08032024000218011062ID1107953761
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.