2024-07-17 08:11:41
The first days of work of the Ethics Commission investigating the allegations of influence peddling within the Supreme Court have been turbulent, with public clashes with the National Prosecutor’s Office and with the judges themselves.
A little over two weeks after Ricardo Blanco Herrera, president of the Supreme Court, will create an Ethics Commission to investigate allegations of influence peddling In the appointment of judges to the highest court, the government has faced a series of obstacles that have prevented it from making much progress so far.
The first floor barrier which was faced by the body led by Blanco himself, and also made up of judges Adelita Ravanales and Gloria Ana Chevesich, came from none other than the National Prosecutor Ángel Valencia himself.
The head of the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to accede to the Supreme Court’s request to facilitate Luis Hermosilla’s WhatsApp chats with members of the Judiciary who are being investigated, as well as the case of Gonzalo Migueles, partner of Minister Angela Vivanco.
Valencia’s response was blunt: “The request is related to information included in ongoing criminal investigations, which, in accordance with the provisions of the criminal procedure code and other laws in force, must be kept secret.”
The “rebellion” of Matus and Vivanco in the Supreme Court
Another aspect that clouds the atmosphere among the members of the Supreme Court is that some of the judges involved, Jean Pierre Matus and Angela Vivancothey have undermined the validity of the actions of the Ethics Commission.
This, after Jean Pierre Matus, Angela Vivanco and María Teresa Leterier were assured days ago that the Ethics Commission would only gather information regarding the accusations of influence peddling that link them. But this changed when María Soledad Melo, spokesperson for the Supreme Court, explained that Matus, Vivanco and Letelier, who were joined by Judge Mario Carroza, had already been notified of the opening of the investigations against them.
“What needs to be clear is the following: The Ethics Commission reviews the background and if it considers that there is any action by a minister that violates the ethical principles that govern us, it issues a report, and that report is taken to the Plenary. They do not sanction, it is not an administrative or disciplinary procedure. It has been said that it is the same, but it is not the same. They make a report to the Plenary and the Plenary will determine whether any administrative summary investigation is required for the facts or will say that it is a violation and it will be archived,” explained Melo.
Along with this, he ruled out the existence of alleged conflicts and tensions between the members of the Plenary of the Supreme Court due to these open processes, asserting that “We have differences, but there are no tensions here, there are no fights between ministers, one can have different positions as happens in the chambers, “Where one can have different votes and I am not going to start fighting, they are different issues. There is a good atmosphere, even though the press says otherwise.”
However, the first to react to the words of the Supreme Court spokesperson was Jean Pierre Matus, who flatly ruled out any type of conversation via WhatsApp with Luis Hermosilla, contradicting the Ciper report where they state that Matus did admit to having contacts with the lawyer.
“And you will see that there is no WhatsApp from me, there is none. I deny it and all they do is put a headline, making it seem as if I had WhatsApp with Mr. Hermosilla and there is not,” the magistrate declared to the press this Thursday.
Along these lines, he requested the disqualification of the Ethics Commission, pointing out that “This Court has no jurisdiction to hear proceedings that are not those of members of the Judiciary.”
Angela Vivanco, for her part, refused to be notified of the investigation against her until the WhatsApp messages linking her to possible influence peddling are shown.
The big but that the Supreme Court faces in the Vivanco situation is that she does not hold conversations of this tone or is even appointed, since the actions for which she is questioned were carried out by her partner, Gonzalo Migueles.
Last-minute changes in the Ethics Commission
To close these turbulent days in the highest court, the last-minute changes also affected the members of the Ethics Commission, after Minister Adelita Ravanales requested his disqualification.
Ravanales justified his position by pointing to his friendship with Angela Vivanco. “They were university classmates, they are classmates and they have also shared some social activities,” explains spokesperson María Soledad Melo.
Adelita Ravanales’ position will be filled by Andrea Muñoz Sánchez, who thus joins Ricardo Blanco and Gloria Ana Chevesich as members of the hitherto vilified Ethics Commission of the Supreme Court.