Outcry against Electoral Tribunal ruling favoring Martinelli

The ruling endorsed by the magistrates of the Electoral Court (TE), Heriberto Araúz, and Alfredo Juncá, in practice prevents Ricardo Martinelli from being tried for the New Business and Odebrecht cases.

Araúz and Juncá denied suspending Martinelli’s criminal electoral jurisdiction, alleging the principle of specialty that is in the extradition treaty of the United States and Panama, the workhorse that the former president’s legal team has brought up again and again to delay the cases in which it is linked.

Both prosecutors and judges, as well as the United States State Department itself, the country that extradited him in 2018, have said that Martinelli no longer enjoys this protection reports La Prensa.

“It is a shame and a mortal blow to the political system that was already in intensive care,” said former Attorney  General Ana Matilde Gómez, “
The controversial ruling also set off the alarm of those who allege that the TE overreached and even usurped functions. The former Supreme Court judge, Harry Díaz, considers that it is necessary to “review” why two TE magistrates made a decision “so absurd and beyond their jurisdiction.”

He added that here it is appropriate to present a claim of unconstitutionality so that the Court resolves the matter. The president of the Panameñista Party, José Isabel Blandón, announced that he has already asked the lawyers of his group to prepare an action of unconstitutionality. In a statement, the party warned that “there has been a misuse of power and a clear violation of constitutional norms.”

Extradition Treaty
The most generalized criticism delved into the fact that magistrates Heriberto Araúz (rapporteur of the ruling) and Alfredo Juncá brought up the principle of specialty consigned in the extradition treaty between the United States and Panama.

Díaz recalled that the principle of specialty is decided by the extraditing country, so if the United States decided that it is no longer applicable to Martinelli, “there is nothing more to say.” The former magistrate suggests that what is appropriate now is to present a claim of unconstitutionality against the decision made by Araúz and Juncá, and wait for the Court to resolve the issue.

A similar position is held by the former electoral prosecutor Boris Barrios, who said that the principle of specialty escapes the functions of the TE magistrates, within a review of a request to lift the electoral jurisdiction. “The TE invaded the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch by ruling on an issue that is not within its jurisdiction,” he argued.

 Barrios also pointed out that the ruling of the TE prevents ordinary criminal justice from defining the processes that follow Martinelli for the Odebrecht and New Business cases. In fact, Martinelli and his team of lawyers have already managed to delay the hearing for the New Business case

For the former TE magistrate, Guillermo Márquez Amado, the ruling that now prevents Martinelli from being tried, “is an unlawful decision.”

“The magistrates of the Electoral Court, with the cosmetic rescue of Eduardo Valdés Escoffery’s vote, have wanted to help  Martinelli, despite the fact that they are against what the law says.”

The Independent Movement (Movin)   said: “It is absolutely unacceptable to use the criminal electoral jurisdiction to prevent investigations and trials, especially in cases of corruption.

The Panamanian chapter of Transparency International, Tweeted “We repudiate the ruling against the law of @tepanama in favor of the criminal jurisdiction of the former president and we subscribe to rescue arguments of Mag. Valdes. Impacts to citizen confidence in TE are devastating in the face of Elections 2024″.