Executive Accountability: Constitutional Accusations and Impeachment Challenges

Understanding Constitutional Allegations

Constitutional allegations spanning two decades have been marked by intense confrontations, impacting all sectors and leading to unexpected political outcomes.

The Constitutional Accusation (AC) Mechanism

The Constitutional Accusation (AC) serves as a control mechanism for official acts of irresponsibility or irregularities in public functions. While the AC is a vital tool, it is not always the most appropriate procedure, as constitutional responsibility may also fall under criminal or administrative law.

Bases for Impeachment Offenses

• Impeachment offenses are explicitly detailed in Article 52 of the Constitution.

Performance and Inter-Branch Relations

• Parliamentarism necessitates immediate cooperation between government branches. In a presidential system, the president should foster incentives for such cooperation. Relations between branches must be respectful, based on good faith, and built on trust.

The Impeachment Process

The aim of a constitutional accusation is for Congress to act upon the guilt of an official, potentially leading to their removal from office. Guilt must be established based on clear, accurate facts and framed within the constitutional grounds for each case. The Organic Law of Congress governs this entire process, providing guarantees to the accused.

Complainant Allegations

• Not all officials are subject to the same charging procedures; only those specified by the Constitution. For example, the Attorney General is removed by the Supreme Court.

Key Elements of Impeachment

Incorporating elements of impeachment into a model allows Congress to impose sanctions independently of judicial decisions.

Impeachment requires attribution to Parliament, which is distinct from both presidential and parliamentary systems. As it is not a legal court, Parliament must act conscientiously, based on controlled evidence.

Challenges and Concerns in the Impeachment System

Restricting Judicial System Powers

The prosecutorial claim cannot exceed or reduce the terms of the congressional charge. This can potentially infringe upon the powers of the Comptroller General of the Republic and the courts, especially when signals deemed illegal by Congress contradict findings from the Comptroller.

Atypical Investigation Regarding Constitutional Violations

Investigations into constitutional violations may risk infringing upon the fundamental right to due process. The investigative methods employed must be useful, appropriate, and balanced. While the goal is to impose sanctions, tactics should not be used, nor should the Constitution be manipulated to suit personal preferences; voluntarism should be avoided.

Abuses of the System

• Lightness of charges against the accused.
• Lack of objectivity.
• Potentially criminal and unconstitutional actions.
• Vagueness during the arraignment process.

Further Considerations on System Challenges

This can thereby infringe upon the powers of the Comptroller General of the Republic and the courts, as signals deemed illegal by Congress may contradict the Comptroller's findings, necessitating impeachment.

Investigations into constitutional violations may risk infringing upon the fundamental right to due process. The investigative methods employed must be useful, appropriate, and balanced. While the goal is to impose sanctions, tactics should not be used, nor should the Constitution be manipulated to suit personal preferences; voluntarism should be avoided.

Abuses of the system include the lightness of charges against the accused, a lack of objectivity, potentially criminal and unconstitutional actions, and vagueness during the arraignment process.