Judicial Scandal: 37 Dismissed for Their Average, What About the Bátiz Case?

A storm is shaking the judiciary: while 37 candidates lose their positions by tenths of a point in their rating, the controversial case of Bernardo Bátiz, whose nomination is deemed unconstitutional, calls into question the fairness and legality of the entire process.

A controversial extraordinary session of the General Council of the National Electoral Institute (INE) has jeopardized the beginning of the formation of the new Judicial Branch by declaring ineligible 37 people who had won circuit court positions in the recent elections.

The reason: failure to meet a requirement that has sparked intense debate.

The INE's central argument is that the applicants failed to demonstrate a minimum grade point average of 8 in their bachelor's degree, a legal criterion that, despite having been nominated by the Evaluation Committees, now invalidates their success. Of those affected, three failed to achieve the minimum grade point average of 8, while another 34 failed to achieve the minimum grade of 9 in the specialty for which they were applying.

The decision was not unanimous and revealed deep divisions within the Council. Councilor Carla Humphrey demanded that these appointments not be approved, while her colleague Uuc-kib Espadas harshly criticized those who tried to relax the rule.

"There was enormous ease in inventing and proposing nonexistent criteria," said Councilor Uuc-kib Espadas, referring to the proposal to allow grade roundings, such as going from 7.5 to 8, calling it a measure without legal basis.

On the other hand, Councilor Norma Irene de la Cruz was the only one who supported validating candidates who did not meet the requirement.

The session adjourned to discuss the profiles of the runners-up who could fill the vacancies, provided they meet all the requirements.

While the INE applied the average rule with meticulous rigor, a much larger shadow was cast over the legitimacy of the entire process: the candidacy of Bernardo Bátiz Vázquez.

Various analyses and critics point out that his inclusion on the ballot is void from the outset, violating not a secondary rule, but the Constitution itself. The argument is that Bátiz was appointed by the Senate of the Republic without going through the filter of the Evaluation Committees, a safeguard established in Article 96 of the Constitution specifically designed to guarantee the technical suitability of candidates.

This action, according to critics, is not a simple irregularity, but an unconstitutional act.

The controversy surrounding Bátiz's candidacy is based on the alleged violation of three pillars of the rule of law:

* Legality and Constitutional Supremacy: It is noted that the Senate ignored the procedure of Article 96, acting outside the fundamental law. An unconstitutional act, by definition, cannot generate rights or validate a candidacy.

* Legal Certainty: The Senate's discretionary intervention to favor a citizen who failed to comply with the initial stages destroys the predictability of the process and opens the door to political arbitrariness.

* Fairness in the Race: By allowing Bátiz to get onto the ballot through a privileged route, an "uneven playing field" was created, breaking with the fairness that should apply to all contenders.

There can't be first-class candidates, who follow the constitutional route, and second-class candidates, who are inserted by political decision.

The INE's General Council has postponed a final decision on this and other issues, such as gender parity and domestic violence complaints.

The final results and the issuance of certificates will be determined next week, leaving the country in suspense, with a fundamental question hanging in the air: Can we be strict with the tenths of an average and flexible with the Constitution?

The credibility of the new judiciary depends on the response.

Do you think the law applies equally to everyone? Share this research and join the debate.