Expansion of the Supreme Court of Justice

For some time now, the government has been signaling that the possible expansion of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation , which would increase its membership from five to seven, is an idea worthy of consideration. Senator Juan Carlos Romero (Cambio Federal-Salta) has a draft proposal on this matter, and in a recent public appearance, Justice Minister Mariano Cúneo Libarona stated that the proposal is indeed under study and that it "should not be ruled out."

Let's start by pointing out something basic: it is true that a Court currently of only three members ( Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Ricardo Lorenzetti ) creates difficulties for its normal functioning. Recently, it was necessary to draw lots for associate judges to resolve a case involving Lázaro Báez and other defendants with convictions already issued and awaiting a final decision from the Supreme Court. It was revealed that there were disagreements among the Supreme Court justices regarding the handling of a request from Báez's defense regarding the application of certain anti-money laundering regulations. Pretending that the three Supreme Court judges always agree It is not a very reasonable option Therefore, until two permanent judges are appointed to fill these vacancies, we will have to get used to the regular appearance of associate judges.

But the question raised here is different. It has to do not with the need, which exists, to fill the two existing vacancies, but with the inconvenience of expanding the composition of the court to seven members. There have been precedents of seven-judge courts in the past (and also of nine), and There have been numerous discussions about whether there is an ideal number The Court has functioned correctly in many periods of its history with only five justices, as long as they understand that it is a court with limited and exceptional jurisdiction, and that its role is not to strive for the "unification of criteria" in common law matters, such as the interpretation of codes enacted by Congress and other non-federal norms. The current Court is clear about this. If it were intended to carry out its mission with more members, the delays would be greater, as cases would circulate through a greater number of courtrooms.

Regarding whether it is appropriate to expand its composition at this time, The question that needs to be asked is whether the Executive Branch will have learned anything from the lesson left by its failed attempt to fill the two current vacancies. Well, if nothing has been learned, repeating the previous terrible experience with four judges would clearly be absurd and a grave mistake.

To do so, it would be essential to consider highly prepared and unexpected candidates, ideally two women , capable of obtaining the difficult two-thirds majority of Senate votes required by the Constitution. That's what he should have done before, without being infatuated with the appointment of a candidate like Judge Ariel Lijo , who received numerous and well-deserved reproaches from the legal community.

It is not by blindly expanding the Supreme Court that its performance will be improved, but comprehensively regulating the legislation on extraordinary appeals, restricting their application to exceptional cases .

Now, it's a well-known fact that our political leadership hasn't been giving any lessons in understanding, especially on issues related to the fight against corruption and promoting institutionality. What happened with the fall of the clean record law is a clear example. The interests related to maintaining the status quo and the protection of those politicians who would be affected by the prohibitions on accessing public office prevailed. that this project contemplated.

When there are very important judicial cases, some with convictions already handed down in two previous instances and which therefore should not go through, but will go through the Supreme Court, opening a "negotiation" in the Senate to appoint not only two judges (whose vacancies already exist), but four, will surely lead to a discussion for which our political leadership is clearly not ready This creates a serious risk that the proposed expansion of the Court will be tied to a petty calculation of "yes votes" to overturn these convictions, in a kind of commercial negotiation of give and take in which the candidates' qualifications for excellence are left aside.

Unfortunately, the context in which this project appears, signed solely by a senator – a typical trial balloon situation when someone wants to promote an idea and appear to be unrelated to it – allows us to assume that there is no real interest in improving the performance of the Court, but rather in offer negotiating tools to opponents to obtain political benefits in other areas.

If the expansion is intended to turn the necessary holding of positions into political spoils, we are doing a disservice to the Court as an institution and to the separation of powers as a central principle of our republican democracy.

According to