After the judicial fair, the chamber prosecutor Juan Carlos Paulucci will have to decide whether a group of deputies from Together for Change has legitimacy to participate in the cause in which the legality is discussed of the two honorary pensions for $ 1.6 million that Cristina Kirchner charges monthly.
After Paulucci’s ruling that is not binding is known, the social security chamber will be in conditions to vote if he accepts or rejects definitively the deputies in that cause. In the event of a possible rejection by the court, there will be no one else to defend the interests of the State and the vice president’s claim would remain firm.
For now it will be the chamber of the social security chamber, made up of judges Néstor Fasciolo, Sebastián Russo and Fernando Strasser, which will have the last word on whether the legislators They are still in the cause that Cristina is so interested in. Your vote will be known after the fair and after Paulucci’s opinion.
Judicial sources revealed to Clarion that that courtroom “already failed in a similar case rcasting the legitimation of deputies”. If so, as the investigating prosecutor Gabriel De Vedia did not appeal and the ANSES of Fernanda Raverta supports Cristina’s requests, the payment of the two pensions that have already been provided in an administrative decision will remain final.
Would another judgment in favor of the vice president, after he managed to annul the oral trial for the Future Dollar case and now claim the same for the case of the Pact with Iran.
Cristina was based on the fact that the National Treasury Attorney and his judicial “brain”, Carlos Zannini, considered “null of absolute nullity the resolutions of the Ministry of Social Development ”of Macri that had ordered the vice president to opt for one of the two pensions.
On the same day, March 3, 2021, Raverta, without Pérez Nami’s sentence being final, paid the two pensions after Cristina resigned her salary of about 300 thousand pesos as vice president. The claim included a retroactive 100 million pesos for pensions from 2016 to date.
At the end of December 2020, the surrogate judge Ezequiel Pérez Nami granted all of Cristina’s claims, after during the government of Mauricio Macri it was decided that she should choose between one of the two pensions. One is for his presidency and another as the widow of former President Néstor Kirchner.
Is about honorary pensions for former presidents and former vice-presidents – not for retirements – which is granted by law 24,018 and which says that a single benefit must be chosen. For example, former Vice President Amado Boudou collects his privilege pension, despite being condemned.
So in February 2021 they introduced themselves as interested third parties a group of deputies and appealed to the camera the sentence of Judge Pérez Nami.
At first the judge I agree to the deputies but after a furious claim from the defense he turned and rejected them. Thus, the legitimacy of the legislators to act in the case is now being discussed. It’s about the national deputies Alejandro Cacace, Alfredo Víctor Cornejo, Luis Alfonso, María Dolores Martínez and María Graciela Ocaña and separately, the national deputy Emilio Asseff. In addition, Jimena de Latorre from Usina de Justicia made a presentation in the same sense.
The appellants stated that they should participate before “the total defenselessness of the National State and in the absolute inaction of the Executive Director of ANSES “and a member of La Cámpora, Fernanda Raverta. In addition, it is the destination of public funds. In a brief letter, ANSES appealed not to leave a precedent for other retirees but, Until now, he never founded his position.
The deputies founded their procedural legitimation as Deputies of the Nation, in the preceding “Solá, Felipe c / Estado Nacional s / Amparo ”, judgment of Chamber IV of the Federal Administrative Litigation Chamber, of the year 2017.
Even with quotes from former president Raúl Alfonsín, Cristina denounced for contempt of the lawyer of the deputies of Together for Change, Federico Despoulis, and the cause was going up political tone.
The following month, the prosecutor De Vedia also opposed the intervention of the deputies and requested that “a declaration inadmissible the appeal filed by them against the final judgment ”.
Instead, according to Herrero –a judge famous for his defense of the rights of retirees-, he had to appeal the payment that Raverta made and “have raised an incident of invalidity for violation of the constitutional guarantee of due legal process ”.
In an in-depth analysis of the case circulating in Congress, the former social security chambermaid said that the prosecutor De Vedia that “should ensure the indemnity of the guarantees of due process and defense in court that protected him, he remained outside his constitutional and legal role ”in the case opened by Cristina.
Currently, De Vedia is proposed by the Government in the Senate as a candidate for member of the Labor Appeals Chamber.
De Vedia’s obligation “is not limited to the defense of the plaintiff or the defendant, but rather his function as a prosecutor focuses on the permanent protection of constitutional guarantees of due process, defense in court and access to justice, of “all” parts of the trial “Said Herrero.
For Herrero, the Vedia prosecutor, “instead of protecting the guarantee of due process and access to justice for the defenseless National State, as was his duty, joined the defense of the opposing party”.
However, Cristina “was not only sponsored by a legal firm specialized in the matter and with close ties with the National Government, but also had –and has- with the political support – not only legal – of Zannini and Raverta”.
Therefore, Herrero stated, “De Vedia should respond to criminal justice for possible crimes of public action, as it should also be reported to the Prosecution Court of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Nation for poor performance ”.