The Council of State accepted the investment loss claim filed against the senator for review. and President-elect Gustavo Petro Urrego, accused of alleged absenteeism in Congress.
(Read: Gustavo Petro: inadmissible lawsuit claiming loss of investment)
Although the claim was initially denied due to procedural issues, the appeal was timely rectified by Joan Sebastián Moreno and therefore the case will now be examined.
(Read: Molano to answer questions about the US donation to the Police)
Now, since Petro was elected president, what about the case? While actions that an elected president can take in criminal cases go to the House of Representatives Investigation and Impeachment Committee, this does not happen in administrative cases.
This was explained to this newspaper by former State Counselor Marco Antonio Velila. ANDThe lawyer said that due to the nature of this type of investment loss process, the natural judge is the State Council, regardless of the jurisdiction that Petro acquires.
(Read: Abortion: Government wants to overturn decision decriminalizing her by week 24)
“When a person is elected in Congress and is in the middle of the process of losing his appointment, his term in the legislature ends, the process continues until a concrete decision is made in the Council of State and does not go to another authority,” Velila said.
In any event, he stated that any decision of the supreme court would have no bearing on Petro’s status as the new president or after he took office.
The source assures that Petro has not attended plenary sessions of Congress 17 times since 2018, all without duly justification, six of which were in the same legislature.
For example, in the case, “On 28 August 2018, Mr. Petro Urrego did not attend the plenary meeting scheduled for that day, arguing that he suffered from torticollis under the pretext of private doctor George Barrios. Excuse not copied or verified with EPS Sanitas to which the defendant congressman belongs”.
(Read: Constitutional Court protects victims who report sexual violence)
According to the plaintiff, on 6 November 2018, “the defendant deputy did not attend the general assembly meeting that day without any excuse” and would not write down the medical excuse presented by his private doctor for other sessions he did not attend. help.
“Transcription and confirmation of medical excuse against EPS is not solely and exclusively against disability payment by the Comprehensive Social Security System, furthermore, as an example of the verification and validation of a fact that may have legal consequences for a medical specialtyand that, for the special case, is that there is no session in the Senate of the Republic”, the case states.
(Read: Supreme Court determines when corporate veil can be lifted)
“It is customary for members of Congress to go to garage clinics to justify their absences, and so public employment needs to have a more stringent example of controlling public officials who use these actions to justify their absence from public employment,” the lawsuit states.
For Moreno, none of the six absences in the 2018-2019 legislature had an alibi, which was copied and approved by EPS Sanitas.
(Read: Court sanctioned lawyer for leaking Aida Merlano’s testimony)
The EPS filter has to agree on what it has to do with transcription and verification, not just for reimbursement of the newspaper’s value, but as said earlier, as an entity that can deliver it scientifically. and medical support. an alibi given by an unofficial doctor,” he assures.
Now, the case is in the hands of Judge Alberto Montaña.
[email protected]
@JusticiaET
Source: Exame
