The former judge of the Supreme Court of Justice Eugenio Zaffaroni and the former Minister of Justice of the Nation León Arslanian spoke this Wednesday in favor of increasing the number of judges of the highest courtwhen presenting in the Senate during the debate on the reform of that body promoted by the Front of All (FdT).
On the second day of presentations during a plenary session of commissions, both Zaffaroni and Arslanian expressed criticism of the current structure of the highest body of the Judiciary and agreed that a number not less than ten should integrate the body.
Under discussion are four bills presented by the Frente de Todos to reform the composition of the Court. The commission meetings will continue at least during the rest of May with the presence of more guests and, as he learned Clarion, They rule out issuing an opinion before June.
This Wednesday Zaffaroni spoke out in favor of a composition of 24 judgesone proposed by each province, to give a “true federal sense” to the conduct of the court and considered that “the fundamental thing is to be clear about the institutional defects” of the Judicial Power, beyond the number of its members.
“This is a political issue of institutional engineering,” said the former magistrate, adding that “it is urgent to resolve” those defects that concern the functioning of the Court.
Zaffaroni recalled his time on the Supreme Court and described it as “inhuman” the number of sentences issued per year. “I have had to sign sentences on matters that I do not know, I gave them at some point 60 years ago in college, then I never saw them again,” he admitted.
“When I had to join the Court it took me a while to get used to it because they calculate that 17 thousand signatures It is one every half hour without sleeping Saturday, Sunday and holidays, that is inhumane, “he said.
And he continued: “One sees the more or less transcendent causes, but also in those transcendental or important causes there is another more serious problem, not of time, but of knowledge.”
Eugenio Zaffaroni was a Supreme Court judge for eight years until his retirement in 2014. Photo: Emiliana Miguelez.
“To ultimately resolve any cause of any matter in the whole country one has to be a subject matter specialistbecause otherwise it turns out that we have specialized courts below and a multi-jurisdiction supreme court”, he concluded.
Meanwhile, he questioned the concentration of the resolution of causes in only three people “it is republicanly a problem”. “As geniuses as these people are, concentration of power it is a problem,” he said in reference to the current judges of the Court, who are four after the resignation of the only woman who was part of it, Elena Highton de Nolasco.
Zaffaroni added that “it is time to think seriously about a federal court” and did not rule out a formation with 24 members, one for each district. “Without touching the Constitution, the President of the Republic can limit himself. Governors are asked to provide two names, a man and a woman, and they agree to send the document and we would have a court of 24 ministers,” he exemplified.
Regarding the ruling that brought back the formation of the Council of the Judiciary to the reform prior to 2006, Zaffaroni maintained that it is “an experience that will discredit the Council, which has gone wrong since the reform of the 1994 Constitution.”
Another of the speakers on the day was the former minister Arslanianfor his part, did not rule out that the alternative proposed by Zaffaroni of increase the number of judges of the Court to 24 and said that in any case it should not be less than ten.
“The objective of having more judges is remove the causes faster but also the strengthening of the debate on transcendental federal issues,” he pointed out and said that “three people cannot discuss only a sensitive issue such as the gender issue or abortion to decide what is then going to be the law applicable to 44 million inhabitants”.
Arslanian also expressed that the requirement of rotation in the presidency of the court is necessary and said that “the Court would not cease to be one because it is made up of several chambers”, another of the points proposed in the four bills that are discussed in the Senate.
“An example -he said- is the one that arises with the Council of the Judiciary: nobody questions that it is only one, even though the laws that regulated it established powers that are proper to the plenary.”