Tambien verlo en PDF:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan020459.pdf
REMOVAL OF CONGRESSPERSONS FROM PUBLIC OFFICE:AN EFFECTIVE TOOL AGAINST CORRUPTIONFERNANDO CEPEDA ULLOA
Paper to be presented at the
6th Global Forum on Reinventing Government.
Toward Participatory Methods and Transparent Governance.
May 24-27, 2005, COEX, Seoul
At the workshop: Representative Democracy, Participatory Methods and
Capacity Development for Responsable Politics
Co-sponsored by Internacional IDEA
2
REMOVAL OF CONGRESSPERSONS FROM PUBLIC OFFICE:
AN EFFECTIVE TOOL AGAINST CORRUPTION
Fernando Cepeda Ulloa
Introduction
In the fight against corruption, it is necessary to identify tools which have proven to be
effective. It is fundamental to have a repertoire of “Best Practices” available, in order to
advance in the pursuit of transparency for public management and entrepreneurial life,
and doubtlessly, for the life of the co-operative sector, foundations and NGOs1.
Concern over the need to find successful formulae gave way to the request that was made
to me by Carlo Binetti, then representative of the IDB in Colombia, in the sense of
conducting research on the matter in the country. This mandate allowed me to review
anti-corruption strategies, and thus rescue an important set of mechanisms that, because
of their nature, had shown considerable results in favor of integrity.
At the request of the IDB Representation in Europe, in 2003, I made a description,
analysis and evaluation of one of those successful practices: removal of Congresspersons
from public office (pérdida de investidura), which has been applied since the adoption of
the 1991 Constitution.
In over ten years that the figure has been in force, this is the first time that an attempt is
made at presenting its antecedents, describing the procedure for its application and
analyzing case-law in regards to the specific subject of the notion of “Conflict of
interests”, this time extended to the subject of Congresspersons’ prohibitions regime. The
lessons left by this interesting and peculiar institution form part of the present case study.
Such effort, timely fostered by the IDB, will assist in the consolidation of this institution
in Colombia, and in the prevention of the risks that could make it less effective, if not
useless or innocuous. A synthesis of this investigation –in which lawyer Claudia Escolar
participated practically as co-author- is presented in the following lines.
1 The author of this study has published several books on corruption and on the subject of political
finance: La corrupción administrativa en Colombia, diagnóstico y recomendaciones para combatirla
(editor), Tercer Mundo Editores, 1994, Bogotá (2 Vols.). La corrupción en Colombia (editor), Tercer
Mundo Editores, 1997, Bogotá. Corrupción y gobernabilidad, 3R Editores, Bogotá, 2000. Financiación de
campañas políticas, Ariel Ciencia Política, 1997, Bogotá. La lucha contra la corrupción en Colombia y
recomendaciones para diseñar una nueva estrategia.
3
Origins and philosophy
The figure of removal from public office (pérdida de investidura) was a creation of the
1991 Constituent. It was one of the innovations that achieved simple consensus, and
which were not submitted to nominal or secret voting in the Constituent Assembly2. It
was approved by acclamation. Over time, this institution has become consolidated, and it
enjoys broad support.
On the face of the erosion in the credibility of representative institutions, and the public
opinion’s majority will to change political customs marked by clientelism, as well as to
strengthen the State and counter criminal organizations, a Constituent process was
promoted since the government of President Virgilio Barco (1986-1990), which finalized
with the approval of the 1991 Constitution, drafted under the leadership of President
César Gaviria (1990-1994). The Government stated, as one of the main purposes of the
constitutional reform project it presented to the National Constituent Assembly, that of
“restoring citizens’ confidence in their institutions, and managing to make them feel
adequately represented by them”3. For the case of Congress, this purpose would be
attained “insofar as Colombians discover that the vices and practices which have been
undermining the image and the very task of this institution are eradicated once and for
all”4.
Consequently, the governmental project included removal from public office as a
mechanism of citizen oversight and control of representatives, and as “a type of sanction
for Congresspersons who fail to comply with the duties imposed by their post”. The
grounds for the application of this measure were: violations of the prohibitions
(incompatibilidades) régime, and unjustified absence from one fourth of the regular
sessions summoned during one legislative period. It was also established that these
grounds could be extended by the law to situations of conflict of interests, once the Rules
of Congress had been adopted5.
Removal from public office was justified in the governmental project as a complement to
the figure of repeal of popular mandate (revocatoria del mandato). Indeed, it was
2 See Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, La Asamblea Constituyente por dentro: mitos y realidades,
Presidencia de la República, Bogotá, 1993, p. xliii.
3 Proyecto de acto reformatorio de la Constitución Política de Colombia, Presidencia de la República,
February 1991, p. 269.
4 Id.
5 Article 181 of the Governmental Project stated at No. 2: “Whenever discussion takes place around
matters which bear a direct incidence upon private interests with which one of its members has had any
relation, such member must make this circumstance public, and his or her vote shall always be public, even
if it is a blank vote”. And number 3 established: “The law shall describe the disciplinary misbehaviors of
the members of public corporations, their Commissions of Ethics’ composition and powers, the sanctions
that will be applicable for violation of the prohibitions and conflicts of interests indicated in the preceding
paragraph, which may rise to removal from public office”.
4
considered that even though the repeal of popular mandate could be used to remove any
public officer elected by uninominal constituency from his post, this figure could hardly
be applied to members of plurinominal lists elected for collegiate bodies. Therefore,
removal from public office would be a suitable mechanism for this purpose.
The project entrusted the Constitutional Court with the mission of deciding on the
removal from public office6. The constituents disagreed with this point, because in their
opinion, given that the Court was elected by the Senate, such tribunal’s Justices should
not perform as judges of their electors in regards to their permanence in public office,
given that this could affect the real or perceived impartiality of the judicial process. In
addition, it was considered that the judicial channel to activate removal from public office
had more affinity to the contentious-administrative judicial actions which have
traditionally been under the jurisdiction of the Council of State.
In the report of the Commission that was in charge of drafting the constitutional Statute
of Congresspersons, Constituents underscored the importance of stating with precision
the scope of the prohibitions (incompatibilidades) regime, so as to prevent
Congresspersons from using their power over other authorities and over the community
in general to obtain undue privileges. This would be the only way to create the conditions
required for
“a better performance in the post (of Congressperson), and to prevent the accumulation of honors
and powers (…). The position of Congressperson gives the individuals who bear it an exceptional
capacity to exert influence over those who manage State moneys, and in general over those who
decide on public matters, which creates inequitable conditions of competition with the ordinary
people, in addition to the fact that it may lead to a generalized corruption of the public sector,
because the branch of public power which should be ultimately responsible for vigilance becomes
compromised with those that it should oversee”7
Eventually, the Constitution not only regulated in detail the prohibitions and conflicts of
interests regimes, with the corresponding sanction of removal from public office, but it
also enshrined a set of principles and guarantees which empower citizens to participate in
political control. This is precisely the major innovation of the 1991 Constitution, because
it designed the figure of removal from public office as an instrument of political control
6 Proyecto de acto reformatorio de la Constitución Política de Colombia, Presidencia de la República,
February 1991, p. 251.
7 “It does not seem necessary to prove the immense loss of prestige of Congress, a phenomenon which has
been increasing in the past times. Elements such as the so-called ‘parliamentary assistances’ (auxilios
parlamentarios), Congresspersons’ trips abroad, “absentism”, the reluctance it has sometimes displayed in
the study and debate of the affairs under its responsibility, the lack of a strict regime of prohibitions and
conflicts of interests, have contributed to erode in a serious manner the image of Legislative Chambers
before the ordinary citizen. In addition, the frequent –not to say permanent- interference of private or group
interests in the decision of issues which are transcendental for the Republic. Congress appears today as an
inefficient, disorganized, oscillating, incompetent, bureaucratic body, the members of which only bear
electoral concerns in mind, incapable of effectively addressing the great problems and urgent solutions of a
country immerse in desperation. In order to correct this situation, it is necessary to introduce serious and
profound reforms, under the general name of “Statute of congresspersons” (Gaceta Constitutional, Tuesday,
April 16, 1991, pp. 26-27).
5
by citizens within a participative democracy – a philosophical principle which was voted
by Colombians in the referendum of May 27, 1990 on the creation of a National
Constituent Assembly, and further developed in the governmental project presented to
said Assembly in February 1991.
Thus citizens have the fundamental right to file public judicial lawsuits in defense of the
Constitution and the law, which materializes their right to exercise control over their
representatives (Article 40 of the Constitution). Therefore, it is a form of “empowering”
and strengthening citizens to oversee the activities of their representatives, which in turn
requires that those elected act transparently and prefer the general interest over their own
private interests (Article 133 of the Constitution).
The profile of the figure
Definition
According to the existing case-law, removal from public office is a sanction8 imposed
upon Congresspersons and other members of popularly elected public corporations,
whenever they incur in any of the grounds established by the Constitution and the Law.
Therefore, violations of the regime that these public officials have to observe on account
of the functions that they perform, entail not only removal from their post, but also the
loss of their right to be elected in an indefinite manner, by mandate of the Constitution
itself (Article 179-4).
According to the Council of State and the Constitutional Court, removal from public
office “constitutes a true political responsibility judgment, which finalizes with the
imposition of a sanction of a jurisdictional nature, of a disciplinary kind (…) which is the
equivalent, given its effects and its gravity, to the destitution of high public officers (…)
which is decided by means of a judicial sentence”9. For the Nation’s General Solicitor
(also known as the Public Ministry), this is a “special and autonomous disciplinary
procedure”, and the “manifestation of an external control, which has the Council of State
as its natural judge and constitutes a real sanction”10.
Removal from public office was originally devised for members of Congress. However,
the Constitution itself admitted, in Article 299, its extension to deputies, by way of
stating that their prohibitions and conflict of interests régime would be established by the
law. A provision on the prohibitions and conflicts of interests of municipal counselors
8 “All of this evinces that this is not an ordinary punishment, but an exceptional one which, therefore,
requires full observance, to the maximum degree, of the constitutional guarantees and requirements of due
process”. Constitutional Court, Decision C-247 of 1995, José Gregorio Hernández Galindo, J.
9 Constitutional Court, decision C-319 of 1994, Hernando Herrera Vergara, J.
10 Concept issued by the General Solicitor of the Nation (Procurador General de la Nación), March 9,
1994, within Process D-470. Communication No. 38.
6
was included with the same purpose in Article 312, which was further developed with the
adoption of Law 136 of 1994, which establishes rules for the modernization of
municipalities’ activities and functioning. Article 55 of this Law establishes that the
members of municipal councils shall be removed from their post whenever they violate
the prohibitions or conflicts of interests regimes, incur in undue destination of public
resources or in duly proven traffic of influences. This sanction will be decided by the
competent Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, following the procedure established for
Congresspersons, in relevant part.
Later on, Law 617 of 2000, which regulated territorial entities’ fiscal adjustment and the
rationalization of national public expenditure, established a set of rules to ensure the
transparency of departmental, municipal and district management. Several articles of Law
136 of 1994 are amended therein, in particular those that deal with the prohibitions and
conflicts of interests of municipal counselors. It is worthwhile to underscore that this Law
also extends the time duration of prohibitions, and broadens the grounds for removal of
deputies and members of Local Administrative Boards from public office.
Finally, Law 734 of 2002 –the Single Disciplinary Code- orders public officers, in Article
22, with the purpose of
“safeguarding the public morals, transparency, objectivity, legality, honesty, loyalty, equality,
impartiality, promptness, publicity, economy, neutrality, effectiveness and efficiency that they
must observe in the performance of their job, post or duties, they shall exercise the rights, comply
with the duties, respect the prohibitions and observe the (different) conflicts of interests regimes
established in the Political Constitution and in the legislation”.
And Article 40 of this Law states in a broad manner that
“every public officer shall declare his or her impediment to act in a given affair whenever he or
she has a particular and direct interest in its regulation, management, control or decision, or
whenever his or her spouse, permanent partner, or any of his or her relatives within the fourth
degree of consanguinity, second of affinity or first of civil kinship, or his legal or de facto
associates, should have such type of interest. Whenever the general interest that appertains to
public service comes into conflict with a particular and direct interest of public officers, they shall
declare their impediment”.
In sum, the adoption of the aforementioned regulations proves that the Legislator has
sought to advance in the application of this figure, and therefore it has broadened its
scope in order to comprise the members of popularly elected corporations, which in turn
has expanded the instruments of citizen oversight at the departmental and municipal
levels. In the present document I will only analyze this institution in regards to the
members of the National Congress.
Grounds for removal from public office
Article 183 of the Constitution, which establishes the grounds for removal of
Congresspersons from public office, does not allow the Legislator to establish new
7
grounds, because as the case-law of the Constitutional Court has repeatedly stated, this
article’s enunciation of grounds has
“very special characteristics (because) it can only operate in the cases, under the conditions and
with the consequences established by the Political Charter. The grounds that give way to (removal
of Congresspersons from public office) are exclusive. This means that the law may not restrict nor
broaden the grounds established in the Constitution as causes for removal from public office.”11
Indeed, Article 183 states that Congresspersons will be removed from public office in the
following cases:
1. For violation of the regime of prohibitions (inhabilidades and incompatibilidades), or the
conflicts of interests regime.
2. For failing to attend, during the same period of sessions, to six plenary meetings in which
legislative act projects, legislative bills or censorship motions (mociones de censura) are
being voted.
3. For failing to be sworn into public post within the eight days following the date of installation
of the Chambers, or the date in which they have been called to assume public office.
4. For improper destination of public resources.
5. For duly proven traffic of influences.
Paragraph. Causes 2 and 3 shall not be applied in cases of force majeure.
In turn, Article 179 of the Constitution establishes in a detailed manner the regime of
prohibitions (“inhabilities” or inhabilidades) applicable to Congresspersons. On account
of this provision, the following categories of persons may not be elected for Congress:
those who have been judicially convicted to prison penalties at any time; those who have
exercised political, civil, administrative or military jurisdiction or authority in the
character of public officers, during the twelve months that preceded the elections; those
who have handled business or executed contracts with public entities in their own interest
or on behalf of third parties, or who have performed as legal representatives of entities
that administer taxes or “para-fiscal” contributions, during the six months that precede the
election; those who have been removed from public office; those who have links with
public officers who exercise civil or political authority on account of marriage, permanent
partnership, or kinship within the third degree of consanguinity, first degree of affinity or
single civil degree; those who are mutually linked and inscribe themselves under the
same party, movement or group for the election of posts or public corporations on the
same date; those who bear double nationality, except for Colombians by birth; and lastly,
no person may be elected for more than one public corporation or post, nor for one
corporation and one post, if the respective periods coincide, even partially.
Likewise, Article 180 enumerates in a detailed manner the prohibitions
(“incompatibilities” of incompatibilidades) that Congresspersons must comply with. This
provision states that members of Congress may not hold any public or private post or
employment; promote, in their own name or on behalf of third parties, matters before
public entities or before persons who administer taxes; perform as solicitors before the
11 Constitutional Court, decision C-280 of 1996, Alejandro Martínez Caballero, J. 5. On account of duly
proven traffic of influences. 6. On account of the other grounds expressly established in the law. Paragraph
1. Grounds 2 and 3 will not be applied whenever force majeure takes place.
8
same entities, nor execute any sort of contract with them. They may not be members of
boards or councils of directors of decentralized entities, nor of institutions that administer
taxes; they cannot execute contracts or engage in any business with natural or legal
private persons who administer, manage or invest public resources, who perform as State
contractors or receive State donations.
It is important to clarify that in regards to conflicts of interests, the pertinent
constitutional provisions are more abstract and broad than those that regulate the
aforementioned prohibitions regimes. In fact, Article 182 states that Congresspersons
must inform the corresponding Chamber about the “situations of a moral or economic
nature” that inhibit them from participating in the discussion of the issues submitted to
their consideration. This broadness has been maintained in regards to conflicts of a moral
sort. In regards to economic conflicts, instead, the Legislator has restricted its scope, as I
will point out further ahead.
In addition, Article 110 of the Constitution complements the foregoing provisions by
stipulating that “it is hereby forbidden for those who perform public functions to make
any type of contribution to parties, movements or candidates, or to induce others to do so,
save for the exceptions established in the law. The violation of any of these prohibitions
shall constitute grounds for the destitution from the post or the removal from public
office”.
Who can request removal from public office?
According to the Constitution and the law, removal from public office may be requested
by the directive boards of the corresponding Chamber and by any citizen.
When the request is formulated by the directive board of the Chamber to which the
Congressperson is ascribed, it shall be sent to the Council of State, together with all
pertinent documentation.
In the event that the request is presented by a citizen, it must be formulated in writing,
and specify: name and identification, domicile, name of the respondent and evidence of
his post of Congressperson, grounds being invoked with the due explanation, any
requests for gathering of evidence and the place where notifications may be made. This
request may be filed without the mediation of a lawyer.
Who decides on removal from public office, and within which term?
According to articles 184 and 237-5 of the Constitution, the Council of State has
jurisdiction to study and decide on the removal of Congresspersons from public office,
without possibility of lodging an appeal. This tribunal must adopt its judgment within a
term no longer than twenty working days, counted from the moment of presentation of
the request.
9
As to requests for removal of deputies, municipal and district counselors from public
office, as well as the members of local administrative boards, Law 617 of 2000 states that
the competent body to decide on their merits is the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal
with jurisdiction over the corresponding department. This tribunal will have up to 45
working days to adopt a decision, starting on the date in which the request is filed by the
directive board of the corresponding departmental assembly or municipal council, or by
any citizen. An appeal may be filed with the competent chamber of the Council of State
as determined by law, within a term no longer than 15 days12.
Procedure
Law 144 of 1994 establishes the procedure for the removal of Congresspersons from
public office, as follows:
a) Presentation of the request and procedure to be followed. The request must be
presented to the general secretary of the Council of State. Once it is received, the
president of the Council of State distributes it on the next working day, and designates the
Counselor who is to draft the decision, who will then decide whether the claim is
admissible or not, within the two working days after its distribution. The claim must be
communicated to the relevant Congressperson during the same period.
The Counselor in charge of preparing the decision returns the request whenever the legal
requirements are not fulfilled, or the relevant annexes are not provided, ordering the
completion or clarification of the necessary points or documents within the following ten
days.
b) Admission and response to the request. Once the request is admitted, the Counselor
orders its notification to the relevant Congressperson and to the Public Ministry, with
which the judicial process is initiated. Once these parties have been informed of the
request, they have a three-day term to respond to it in writing, and on this same
opportunity they may provide evidence, or request its gathering.
12 Article 48 of Law 617 of 2000. Deputies, municipal and district counselors and members of Local
Administrative Boards shall be removed from public office: 1. For violation of the prohibitions
(incompatibilidades) or conflicts of interests regimes. There shall not be conflict of interests when the issue
under consideration affects the counselor or deputee in the same conditions as it affects the general
citizenship. 2. For failing to attend during the same period of sessions to five plenary meetings or
commission meetings in which ordinance or agreement bills are voted, as were the case. 3. For failing to
take possession of public office within the three days that follow the date of installation of the assemblies or
councils, as were the case, or within the three days that follow the date in which they were called to take
hold of the post. 4. For improper destination of public resources. 5. For duly proven traffic of influences. 6.
For the other grounds expressly established in the law. Paragraph 1. Grounds 2 and 3 shall not be applied in
cases of force majeure.
10
c) Gathering of evidence. On the next working day, the competent Counselor will order
the collection of the pertinent evidence, which must bee gathered in the course of the next
three working days. The Counselor shall also point out the date and time of the public
hearing, to be held during the next two days.
d) Public hearing. This hearing is attended by the Council of State in full and it is
presided by the Counselor in charge of preparing the decision.
Parties intervene once, during the time lapse established by the presiding Counselor, and
in the following order: 1) the claimant or her lawyer, 2) the Public Ministry, and 3) the
Congressperson and her lawyer. At the end of the hearing, they may present a written
summary.
e) Registration of the decision draft. The competent Counselor must register the draft of
the decision during the next two days, and he must then summon the Full Contentious-
Administrative Chamber of the Council of State to study and discuss the project. The
decision shall be adopted by the majority votes of the members of such Chamber, that is
to say, twelve out of twenty-three Counselors. The publication of dissenting opinions is
allowed by law.
f) Execution. Once the judgment is in force, that is to say, once the legal term for filing
resources (término de ejecutoria) has expired, it will be communicated to the
corresponding Chamber, the National Electoral Council and the Ministry of the Interior
and Justice.
Judgments in these process enjoy res judicata effects.
g) Appeals. The judgment is not subject to appeal, because this is a single-decision
procedure, but it is however possible to file an extraordinary special revision claim before
the Council of State itself, on the grounds established in Article 188 of the Contentious
Administrative Code for any contentious administrative process, that is to say, disregard
of due process and violation of the right to defense; two broad grounds that give way for
calling into question practically any type of vice.
Table 19.1. Role of the Public Ministry in removal from public office procedures
related to conflicts of interests (1991-October 2003)
Intervention in favor
of removal from
public office.
Intervention against
removal from public
office
Total number of
judgments included
in the sample
ROLE OF THE
GENERAL
SOLICITOR’S
OFFICE
4 23 27
DECISIONS BY
THE COUNCIL OF
5 22 27
11
STATE
Table 19.2. Judgments removing persons from public office – Votings
Voting Number of judgments % of judgments
Unanimous 6 14%
12-vote majority 1 2.3%
13-15 vote majority 11 26%
16-18 vote majority 17 40%
19-22 vote majority 7 16%
Total 42 100%
Effects
At the finalization of a process for the removal of an individual from public office, the
Council of State may deny the corresponding request, case in which the relevant
Congressperson may not be tried for the same facts; or it may grant the request, case in
which it orders removal from public office.
Removal from public office causes severe effects. In the case of Congresspersons, the
following takes place. First, that Congressperson may not continue holding the post
during the period for which he/she was elected. The next member of the list to which
he/she belonged assumes the seat in Congress. Second, the former member of Congress
who has been retired from public office may never be Congressperson again, on account
of an explicit constitutional prohibition (Article 179-4). Third, the Congressperson retired
from public office may never become President or Vicepresident of the Republic, also by
virtue of a constitutional prohibition (Articles 197 and 204).
In addition to these constitutional effects, the Law has further developed the
Constitutional provisions in order to produce similar effects in regards to other popularly
elected posts. Therefore, those who are removed from public office may not become
governors, deputies, mayors nor counselors (Law 617 of 2000, Articles 30, 33, 37 and 40,
respectively) (See Figure 19.1).
However, persons removed from public office may be designated for other important
public posts. This has happened during the current government, because President Alvaro
Uribe designated a former Congressman who had been removed from his post and was
known for his efficiency as Director of the Presidency of the Republic’s National
12
Solidarity Network (Red de Solidaridad Nacional) – the office in charge of the issue of
massive internal displacement of persons.
Figure 19.1. Requests presented, according to the different grounds for removal
from public office. General balance of removal from public office.
The tutela control exercised by the Constitutional Court
A few Congresspersons who have been removed from their posts have resorted to filing
acción de tutela claims against the corresponding judgments, in order to request tutela
judges to invalidate the respective decision by the Council of State, generally arguing that
this tribunal disregarded their due process because of failures in the contentious
procedure, as well as substantial rights, mainly their political rights, given that removal
from public office makes those affected unfit to be elected, and their right to choose a
profession or craft, because it prevents them from being active in politics. However, the
Constitutional Court has been reluctant to annul the Council of State’s decisions in the
four cases that it has had to decide.
In the first tutela judgment on this matter, the Court confirmed the removal of Senator
Ricaurte Losada Valderrama from public office, and noted that the plaintiff had an
alternative channel different from the acción de tutela to claim the violation of his due
process, given that judgments that decide on the removal from public office may be
attacked by way of an extraordinary revision request filed before the same Council of
State13. After resorting unsuccessfully to this channel, the Senator filed a new acción de
tutela against the revision judgment, which is pending resolution by the Constitutional
Court.
13 Constitutional Court, decision T-193 of 1995, Carlos Gaviria Díaz, J.
General Balance - Removal from Public Office
88
65
42
17
35
11
2
4
1
64
5 5
1
5
8
10
0
14
2
0 1 0 0
2
0 1
71
36
27
3
16
2
0 1 0 0
3 2
0
12
21
5
7
4
0 0 0 1
48
0 0
2
0 0 0
8
0 0 0 0 0
8
0 0 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Conflict of
interests
Incompatibility Inability Traffic of
influences
Improper
destination of
public funds
Induction to
contribute to
a political party
(Art.110)*
Belated
assumption of
public post
Art.183-3)
Promoting
business with
the State (Art.
180-2) or with
private persons
who administer
public
funds (Art.
180 num. 4)
Due process Others
(unspecified)
Family links
with authorities
(Art. 179
num. 5
Simultaneous
Registration of
relatives (Art.
179 num. 6)
Failing to attend
sessions
CL
A
I
M
S
F
I
L
E
D
Total requests presented
Removal ordered
Removal denied
Rejected requests /
inhibitory judgments /
lack of object to decide
Ongoing proceedings
13
On the second occasion, Congressman Félix Salcedo Baldión made recourse to the tutela
action claiming that the extraordinary revision channel was ineffective, because the Law
had not yet defined the judge who had jurisdiction to decide upon it. The Court expressly
modified its prior doctrine on the matter –before the developments that followed its 1995
decision14-, and accepted that tutela actions could formally proceed; however, deciding
on the merits, it concluded that the Council of State had been respectful of due process,
and of the other fundamental rights invoked by the Congressman who had been removed
from public office15.
In the third case, removed Senator Edgar Perea also resorted, unsuccessfully, to the tutela
mechanism. Given that the Legislator had already filled in the legal gap in relation to the
judge with jurisdiction to decide on the extraordinary revision requests, and that the
Council of State was deciding on those claims, the Court decided –in a “doctrine
unification judgment” adopted by the Plenary Chamber- that the tutela was not
procedurally admissible16.
In the fourth case, Congressman César Pérez García, who had been removed from public
office, resorted to tutela because the Council of State, for a number of different reasons,
had refused to study the extraordinary revision petition that this Congressman had filed
several times. The court granted the tutela, because the plaintiff was being denied access
to justice, and ordered the Council of State to study the revision petition he had
presented17. This is the only case in which the tutela has been successful. It is noteworthy
14 The Constitutional Court summarized these developments as follows: “This Court, in decision C-247/95
(José Gregorio Hernández Galindo, J.), declared itself without jurisdiction to determine which is the judge
in charge of deciding on the extraordinary revision requests, insofar as this may only be defined by the
Legislature. On the other hand, the bill for Statutory Law on the Administration of Justice assigned the
Penal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice jurisdiction over the aforementioned revision.
However, the Court, in decision C-037/96 (Vladimiro Naranjo Mesa, J.) declared this provision
unconstitutional. It rightly considered, on the one hand, that according to articles 184 and 237-5 of the
Political Charter, decisions on removal from public office are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Council of
State, which means that no other judge may revise the judgments adopted in this regard by such tribunal.
Likewise, admitting said possibility would entail a violation of the principle of judges’ independence
(articles 113 and 228 of the Constitution). On the other hand, the Court considered that the regulation of
procedural channels is a matter that appertains to ordinary, and not statutory legislation.”
15 Constitutional Court, decision T-162 of 1998, Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz, J.
16 Constitutional Court, decision SU-858 of 2001, Rodrigo Escobar Gil, J. (dissenting opinion by Justices
Jaime Araujo Rentería and Alfredo Beltrán Sierra. Impediment declared by Justice Manuel José Cepeda
Espinosa and accepted by the Court).
17 Constitutional Court, decision T-1013 of 2003, Alfredo Beltrán Sierra, J. The order issued by the Court
was as follows: “To order the Council of State, Contentious Administrative Chamber, that for the reasons
exposed in the segment on considerations, to give the corresponding legal course to the extraordinary
revision request presented by the plaintiff on December Tenth (10), nineteen ninety eight (1998), which wa
admitted by decision of January Nineteenth (19), nineteen ninety nine (1999). For this purpose, the
procedures shall continue with the claim provided by the plaintiff, or with the copies that exist in the
Council of State. For the purposes of complying with this judgment, on account of the reasons exposed
above, the decisions adopted by the Contentious Administrative Chamber of the Council of State on August
14
that the Constitutional Court did not invalidate the judgment that ordered the removal of
this Congressman from public office, but ordered the Council of State to abstain from
refusing to give course to the extraordinary revision request.
In addition to these cases, in which the Constitutional Court has exercised control over
the Council of State, it is important to highlight that some Congresspersons have resorted
to the Interamerican System for the protection of Human Rights, in order to claim that the
judgments which have ordered their removal from public office are in violation of their
human rights. Among the arguments they have presented, two stand out in addition to
those that argue violations of due process given the specificities of each case. The first
one states that political rights may only be restricted by way of a criminal judgment,
which would preclude removal from public office from entailing the so-called “political
death”. The second one holds that the effects of removal from public office are
disproportionate, because the political prohibition (“inhability”) that is derived from its
application is permanent and general, regardless of the seriousness of the
Congressperson’s conduct, which leads to a situation in which belated assumption of
public office is treated in an equal manner as the improper destination of public
resources. Until the present, these claims have not been found to be justified.
An evaluation of removal from public office: implications and lessons left by the
Colombian experience.
It is convenient to attempt an evaluation of the performance of this legal institution, on
the grounds of a number of tables and figures which present an overall panorama of its
functioning. In addition, the implications of this figure’s application will be pointed out,
as well as the lessons derived from the Colombian experience.
Evaluation
How frequently has it been used, and which have been the results?
From the review of the Council of State’s case-law it may be inferred that removal from
public office began functioning even before it was legally regulated, and shortly after the
entry into force of the 1991 Constitution, given that the first judgment is dated on
December 11, 1991. During the two following years, 16 new judgments were adopted,
but it was only until 1994 when the use of this figure increased in a significant manner,
with the approval of Law 144 of 1994, which regulates its procedure. Just that year, the
Council of State issued 44 judgments.
Hence removal from public office has been requested very frequently. During the twelve
years that this figure has been in force, it has been requested on 347 occasions, which
the Third (3) nineteen ninety nine (1999) and September Twenty Eight (28) nineteen ninety nine are hereby
devoid of any effect”.
15
represents an average of 29 times a year. Some variations are naturally observed,
especially in years during which political scandals have surfaced, as happened in 2000,
when amid the discussion on the repeal of the mandate of Congress by way of
referendum, 100 requests for removal from public office on account of conflicts of
interests were presented, that is, 28% of all claims. The same happened during the “8.000
Process”, because of the introduction into a legislative bill of an article called the “drugtrick”
(narcomico), on account of which some Congresspersons were removed from their
posts. Consequently, it is evident that the main political scandals related to matters in
which Congress has intervened, have been reflected in requests for removal from public
office (See Table 19.3).
The most often invoked grounds for removal, and their results
The Council of State has removed 42 Congresspersons from public office on diverse
grounds, which means that 12% of them left their seats in Congress and are affected by a
perpetual prohibition (“inability”) to hold popular election posts.
Conflict of interests has been the grounds most often invoked by plaintiffs. Indeed, until
the year 2003, 88 petitions had been filed, out of which five were decided in an
unfavorable manner for the Congressperson, which represents 5,6%. Other grounds, such
as the violation of an “incompatibility”, have been invoked on 65 occasions and granted
in 8, that is to say 12% of the cases, whereas the violation of “inabilities” has been
invoked on 42 opportunities, and accepted in 10, that is 23%. But it is unquestionable that
the grounds which have most frequently led to removal from public office in relation to
the number of claims, are those of improper destination of public resources – it has been
ordered on 14 occasions out of the 35 times it has been requested, which corresponds to
40% (Figure 19.2.).
Conflicts of interest have been invoked as grounds for removal from public office on
many occasions, because the notion is broad, it extends to conflicts of a moral nature, and
it is not limited to pecuniary interests. This explains the fact that four removals from
public office have been ordered for conflicts of interests of a moral sort, and only one for
conflicts of economic interests (see Table 19.4).
Figure 19.2. General balance of removal from public office.
General Balance of Removal from Public Office
88
65
42
17
35
11
2 4
1
64
5 5
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Conflicto de
interés
Incompatibilidad Inhabilidad Tráfico de
influencias
Indebida
destinación de
Inducción a
contribuir a
Toma de
posesión tardía
Gestionar
negocios con el
Debido proceso Otras (sin
especificar)
Vínculo familiar
con autoridad
Inscripción
simultánea de
Inasistencias a
sesiones
Claims filed
16
CATEGORIAS DEL EJE HORIZONTAL
Conflict of interests // Prohibitions (“inhabilities”) // Improper destination of public
resources // Belated assumption of public office (Art. 183-3), // Due process // Family
link to an authority (Article 179-5) // Failure to attend sessions
Table 19.3 Use of removal from public office by years (1991-October 2003).
* – “Narcomico” means the unexpected introduction into a legislative bill of a provision that favored
Congresspersons who were in any way being processed, or could be processed, on account of having links
with illegal drug cartels.
Several requests for removal from public office have been denied on account of the lack
of evidence, given that the case-law requires proof of 1) the existence of a direct and
private benefit, and 2) the fact that the Congressperson acted with knowledge of the
conflict.
YEARS Number of claims filed Event that triggered an
increase
1991 1
1992 2
1993 14
1994 44 Ley 144 de 1994
1995 14
1996 23 “Drug-trick”
(narcomico)*
1997 11
1998 14
1999 21
2000 100 Repeal of mandate
2001 56
2002 42
2003 26
TOTAL 347
17
Those who were removed from public office incurred in conducts that were manifestly
contrary to the rules of the game in force, but in some cases related to “incompatibilities”,
the Council of State displayed a certain severity, which led the affected parties to resort to
acción de tutela in order for the Constitutional Court to invalidate the sanction. In
contrast, on the subject of conflicts of interests, the Council’s doctrine -in the sense that
conflicts are not configured when legislative bills regulate in an impersonal, general and
abstract manner an issue in which a Congressperson could have some interest- is so
indefinite that it could be applied as an excuse in any case, given that all laws are by
definition impersonal, general and abstract.
Cases of conflicts of interests have arisen in the context of the discussion of legislative
bills, constitutional amendments and budgetary or planning provisions, as well as during
the elections of public officers such as the Public Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo), but
not during the course of debates in the exercise of the political control function.
Against whom has it been directed?
It has been directed against Senators and Representatives from all political currents and
from the diverse regions of the country, because there are no immunities before this
figure. Such has been the case of prestigious Congresspersons such as María Isabel
Rueda (one request), Antonio Navarro Wolff (one request), Germán Vargas (one request)
and Ingrid Betancourt (four requests). One of the Congresspersons who has been the most
frequent target of these requests is Fabio Valencia Cossio, on six opportunities. Other
recurrent targets of these petitions have been Juan Fernando Cristo, Alberto Santofimio or
Carlos Espinosa (on four occasions). Some Congresspersons were initially sued in an
unsuccessful manner, as was the case of César Pérez García, but because of a later
request on account of the same grounds, he was removed from public office.
Those who have been removed from public office have been new territorial political
leaders, as well as traditional politicians with great political weight. In fact, even though
some of them were considered to be untouchable, the figure of Removal from Public
Office managed to prevent Congresspersons who incurred in any of the conducts
sanctioned by the Constitution and the law from maintaining their seat in Congress,
sometimes shielded behind their immunity and others behind the possibility of being
elected, even though they were serving a criminal penalty in prison. This took place
before the adoption of the 1991 Constitution.
Observation of the number of Congresspersons who have been removed from public
office in each Chamber reveals that they were 27 Representatives among a 163-member
Chamber, and 15 Senators out of a 102-member Senate (see Tables 19.5 and 19.6).
Table No. 4 Conflicts of Interests – Main judgments
(1991- October 2003)
No. DATE REF. Respondent INTEREST DECISION Voting Plaintiff
18
(d/m/y)
1 01/12/93 AC-632 Álvaro Araujo
Noguera
Economic
(family society)
Removal from
public office, but
not on these
grounds18
2
Dissenting
opinions,
4
Concurring
opinions
Citizen
2 20/01/94 AC-796 César Pérez
García
Economic
(subsidy)
Removal from
public office
DO 1
CO 4
Citizen
3 24/03/94 AC-1276 José Blackburn
Cortés
Economic
(tax)
No DO 1 Citizen
4 26/07/94 AC-
1499.
Fuad Char
Abdalá
Moral
(approval of an Act)
No CO 4 Citizen
5 4/08/94 AC-1433 Gabriel Acosta
Bendek
Economic
(private
employment)
No CO 1 Citizen
6 23/08/94 AC-
1675.
Vivianne
Morales
Moral
(approval of a
religious Act)
No CO 1 Citizen
7 13/03/96 AC-3.
299
Ramón Elías
Náder
Moral (criminal) No DO 6
CO 4
Citizen
8 03/05/96 AC-3302 Armando
Holguín Sarria
Moral (criminal) No DO 5
CO 4
Abs. 2
Citizen
9 03/ 19/96 AC-3300 Gustavo
Espinosa
Jaramillo
Moral (criminal) Removal from
public office
DO 7
Abs. 1
Citizen
10 16/04/96 AC-3304 Alberto
Santofimio
Botero
Moral
(criminal)
No DO 9
CO 7
Abs. 1
Citizen
11 16/04/96 AC-3301 José Guerra de la
Espriella
Moral
(criminal)
No CO 1 Citizen
12 14/05/96 AC-3300 Francisco José
Jattin
Moral
(criminal)
Removal from
public office
DO 7 Citizen
13 07/05/96 AC-3451 Carlos Augusto
Celis Gutiérrez
Moral (criminal) No DO 9
CO 7
Abs. 1
Citizen
14 27/705/96 AC-3453 Tiberio
Villarreal
Moral (criminal) No CO 9 Citizen
15 04/06/96 AC-3549 Álvaro Benedetti
Vargas
Moral (criminal) No CO 3
Abs. 4
Citizen
16 10/03/98 AC-5371 Rafael Humberto
Alfonso Acosta
Moral (criminal) Removal from
public office
DO 5
CO 1
Citizen
17 07/07/98 AC-5878 Oscar Celio Moral (criminal) Removal from DO 4 Citizen
18 Removal from publico office was ordered on account of a violation of the prohibitions (incompatibilities) regime,
even though the plaintiff invoked the grounds of conflicts of interests, but the Council of State concluded that it had not
been configured.
19
Jiménez Tamayo public office
18 06/10/98 AC-6289 Pedro Vicente
López Nieto
Moral
(disciplinary)
No CO 3 Citizen
19 04/05/99 AC-7085 Luis Emilio
Valencia Díaz
Political
(designations)
No DO 1
CO 5
Citizen
20 04/05/99 AC-7087 Carlina
Rodríguez
Rodríguez
Polítical
(designations)
No DO 1
CO 5
Citizen
21 27/04/99 AC-7084 Juan José Chaux
Mosquera
Polítical
(designations)
No DO 2
CO 4
Citizen
22 01/06/99 AC-7083 Rodrigo Rivera
Salazar
Polítical
(designations)
No CO 2 Citizen
23 29/06/99 AC-7090 Jorge Humberto
Mantilla Serrano
Polítical
(designations)
No CO 2 Citizen
24 17/10/00 AC-
11116
Gustavo Ramos
Arjona
Polítical
(repela)
No CO 2 Citizen
25 26/02/01 AC-
12262
Jorge Julián
Silva Meche
Polítical
(investments in his
department)
No - Citizen
26 10/02/01 11001-
03-15-
000-
2001-
0132-01
(PI)
Julio Manzur
Abdalá
Economic
(subsidy)
No - Citizen
27 20/11/01 11001-
03-15-
000-
2001-
0130-01
(PI)
Lorenzo Rivera
Hernández
Económic
(impact of acts by
electric generation
company)
No CO 1 Citizen
28 27/08/02 11001-
03-15-
000-
2002-
0446-01
(PI-043)
Juan Fernando
Cristo Bustos
Económic
(contracts and
regulation -
campaign sponsor)
No CO 2 Citizen
Tabla No. 5 List of Senators who have been removed from public office
according to the grounds invoked (in chronological order)
No. SENATOR GROUNDS DATE
1 Samuel Alberto Escrucería Manzi Inability (Art.179-1) Sept. 8, 1992
2 José Ramón Navarro Mojica Incompatibility
(Art.183-1)
Oct.5, 1993
20
3 Alvaro Araújo Noguera Incompatibility
(Art.180-1 y 2)
Dec. 1, 1993
4 Regina Betancur de Liska Inducing contributions to
political movements or
parties (Art. 110)
Aug. 17, 1994
5 Ricaurte Losada Valderrama Incompatibility
(Art.180-1)
Sept. 7, 1994
6 Gustavo Espinosa Jaramillo Conflict of interests
(Art.183-1)
March 19, 1996
7 José Francisco Jattín Safer Conflict of interests
(Art.183-1)
May 14, 1996
8 Henry Cubiles Olarte Incompatibilities
(Art. 180-2)
Nov. 13, 1997
9 Carlos A. Oviedo Incompatibilities
(Art.183-1)
July 13, 1999
10 Humberto Pava Camelo Inability (Art.179-5) Feb. 1, 2000
11 Edgar Perea Incompatibility
(Art. 180)
July 18, 2000
12 Gentil Escobar Rodríguez Inability
Art. 179-2 y 3)
June 26, 2001
13 Luis Alfonso Hoyos Aristizábal Incompatibility
(Art.180-2)
July 11, 2001
14 José Antonio Gómez Hermida Criminal conviction
(Art.179-1)
Sept.4, 2001
15 Jaime Vargas Improper destination of
public funds
(Art. 183-4)
May, 2003
Tabla No. 6 List of representatives who have been removed from public office,
according to the grounds invoked (chronological order)
No. REPRESENTATIVE GROUNDS DATE
1 Juan Fernando Góngora
Arciniegas
Inability (Art 179-1) Oct.7, 1993
2 Leovigildo Gutiérrez Incompatibility (Art 180-1 and 2) Dec. 1, 1993
3 César Pérez García Conflict of interests
(Art 183-1)
Jan. 20, 1994
4 Emiro Raúl Pérez Ariza Inability (Art.179-1) June 3, 1994
5 Félix Salcedo Baldión Incompatibility (Art.180-2) Aug.26, 1994
6 Alfonso Uribe Badillo Improper destination of public
funds (Art.183-4)
Oct. 19, 1994
7 Rafael Humberto Alfonso Conflict of interests
(Art.183-1)
Jan. 19, 1998
8 Oscar Celio Jiménez Tamayo Conflict of interests
(Art.183-1)
July 7, 1998
9 Armando Pomárico Improper destination of public June 20, 2000
21
funds (Art.183-4)
10 Octavio Carmona Improper destination of public
funds (Art.183-4)
May 30, 2000
11 Luis Norberto Guerra Improper destination of public
funds (Art.183-4)
May 23, 2000
12 Darío Saravia Gómez Improper destination of public
funds (Art.183-4)
Aug. 8, 2000
13 Emilio Martínez Rosales Improper destination of public
funds (Art.183-4)
Oct. 3, 2000
14 Miguel Angel Flórez Improper destination of public
funds (Art.183-4)
Nov. 28, 2000
15 Juan Ignacio Castrillón Improper destination of public
funds (Art.183-4)
Feb.5, 2001
16 Luis Javier Castaño Ochoa Inability (Art. 183-1 and Art.296
of Law 5/92)
June 5, 2001
17 Mario Rincón Pérez Improper destination of public
funds (Art.183-4)
July 17, 2001
18 Fabio Martínez Improper destination of public
funds (Art. 183-4)
July 5,
2002
19 Luis Alfonso Hoyos Inability (183-1) July 11, 2001
20 Franklin Segundo García
Rodríguez
Improper destination of public
funds (Art.183-4)
Nov. 22, 2001
21 Ancízar Carrillo Inability (Art.179-2) Aug. 28, 2001
22 Lorenzo Rivera Hernández Improper destination of public
funds (Art.183-4
Jan. 28, 2002
23 Jaime Lozada Perdomo Inability (Art.179-2) March 19, 2002
24 Carlos Alberto Martín Salinas Inability (Art.179 y 181 ) March 5, 2002
25 Francisco Canossa Guerrero Inability (Art.183 ) May 14, 2002
27 Miguel Angel Santos Galvis Inability (Art179. ) May 21, 2002
Who has made use of it?
In the overwhelming majority of cases, plaintiffs have been citizens. They have filed 319
claims, that is to say 90% of the requests for removal from public office. The activism of
four citizens stands out, because they are responsible for 72% of the requests. They have
been a decisive factor in the application of this figure.
On the contrary, controlling bodies have applied the figure on 20 occasions, which
amount to 5% of the cases. Senate itself has only invoked it on three occasions, and the
Chamber just once. The General Solicitor’s Office (Procuraduría General de la Nación),
which has been the most active among all institutions, has only done it in 13 cases (see
Table 19.7).
Implications of removal from public office
22
Several indicators have been applied in order to identify the implications of removal from
public office. Taken as a whole, they signal that the institution has borne a significant
impact in the sense of preventing the continuation of certain corrupt practices, and
ensuring that in extreme cases Congresspersons lose their seats, even though this has not
been enough to completely depurate politics, nor to improve the image of Congress or the
Parties. These are indicators of a different order.
Table 19.7. Who act as plaintiffs in procedures for removal from public office
23
Institutional indicators
At the level of case-law, there are three indicators that do not cease to be illustrative on
account of being evident. First, removal from public office has not remained in the paper,
it has worked in practice and as a result of it, 42 Congresspersons have been removed
from their posts. Second, all of the legal grounds for removal from public office have
been invoked and applied by the Council of State, which indicates that the institution has
been operating in its integrity. Third, up to date no judgment by the Council of State has
been invalidated or revoked, even though 10% of them have been questioned,
unsuccessfully. This indicates that the Council of State has not incurred in excesses.
At the legislative level, several phenomena may be observed, which prove that
Congresspersons have tried to reduce the rigor with which this figure has been applied.
And they have also sought to extend it to other members of public corporations. Both
PLAINTIFF Number of claims filed
CITIZENS One claim per plaintiff 130
Luis Andrés Penagos Villegas 53
Pablo Bustos Sánchez 37
Emilio Sánchez Alsina 19
Two claims per plaintiff 17 (2)
Carlos José Castro Fresneda 14
Myriam y Pablo Bustos Sánchez 8
Humberto Rodríguez Escobar 6
Jaime Rodríguez C. 5
Flavio Restrepo Gómez 5
Jaime Rafael Pedraza 3
Rafael Narváez García 2
Rubiel Orlando Espinosa Triana 3
SUBTOTAL 319
INSTITUTIONS General Solicitor’s Office (Procuraduría) 13
Senate of the Republic 3
Penal Decision Chamber of the Supreme
Court of Justice
1
Cordoba Department Network of Citizen
Overseers (Red de Veedurías
Ciudadanas)
1
Chamber of Representatives 1
Pasto Municipal Personero 1
SUBTOTAL 20
Plaintiff unidentified in the Council of
State information
8
SUBTOTAL 8
TOTAL 347
24
phenomena indicate that far from being innocuous, removal from public office is
perceived as effective and, therefore, as fearsome by Congresspersons themselves.
Removal from public office has been extended to the members of other public
corporations. It has gradually gotten to cover Departmental Assemblies Deputies,
Municipal and District Council members, and even the members of local administrative
boards, as was indicated in the segment of this investigation related to the figure’s
legislative development.
As to the attempts at reducing the rigor of this figure in regards to Congresspersons
themselves, the ones that purport to hamper its development, limit the presentation of
removal from public office requests, weaken the Council of State, increase the majorities
to decide on removal from the post and limiting the grounds that may be invoked, are
outstanding. All these attempts have been enshrined in laws issued by Congress itself, but
they have failed on account of having been declared unconstitutional by the
Constitutional Court.
After the adoption of the Constitution in 1991, a number of requests for removal from
Congresspersons from public office were filed before Congress had regulated the
contentious procedure to be followed by the Council of State in these cases. However,
this did not prevent the figure from initiating its performance. The Council decided upon
more than 15 requests, according to the general contentious-administrative procedure.
This led to several removals from public office, but also to the formulation of
unsuccessful legal attacks against some of them, on account of having been adopted
before the necessary legislative regulations. These were issued by Congress in 1994 by
way of Law 144, which established the special procedure applicable to removal from
public office.
In the laws that regulate this figure, Congress introduced several obstacles purported to
reduce its effectiveness. These were struck down by the Constitutional Court on the
grounds of their unconstitutionality. Firstly, in Law 5 of 1992 –Organic Law of Congress-
, in order to limit the initiation of removal from public office proceedings, it was stated
that the directive boards of the Chambers could not refer any situations in which the
grounds for such removal had been configured to the Council of State, without prior
approval of the remission by the corresponding Chamber in full. The Constitutional Court
considered that this provision restricted access to a procedure that the Constituent had
opened up to any citizen, without imposing any further requirements19.
Secondly, Congress tried to undermine the authority of the Council of State as the
ultimate judge for removal from public office. For this purpose, it created an
extraordinary special revision channel against judgments that decided on such removal,
and gave jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Justice, and not to the Council, for deciding
upon such requests. The Constitutional Court considered that since the Constitution itself
had established the competent judge for this type of proceedings, the Legislature could
19 Constitutional Court, decision C-319 of 1994, Hernando Herrera Vergara, J.
25
not add a new judge, qualified as the latter may be. According to the Court, the Council
has exclusive jurisdiction20.
In third place, Congress tried to modify the majorities required to decide upon the
removal from public office. First it increased the number of Counselors, by establishing
that the members of the Consultative Chamber of the Council of State integrated, together
with the members of the Contentious Chamber of the same Council, the competent judge
to decide on requests for removal from public office. The Constitutional Court decided
that Council of State counselors who only perform consultative functions for the
Government cannot carry out adjudication tasks, and therefore, the Justices of the
Consultative Chamber could not be added to those of the Contentious Chamber21. Later,
in the Statutory Law on the Administration of Justice, members of Congress included a
paragraph that increased the voting majority to two thirds of the members of the
Contentious Chamber. Given that this law was submitted to prior and automatic judicial
review by the Constitutional Court, said tribunal struck down this qualified majority
provision because of its unconstitutionality, given that it violated the democratic principle
even before it entered into force22.
Fourthly, Congress has tried to restrict the grounds of requests for removal from public
office exclusively to Article 183 of the Constitution. With this Congress not only sought
to emphasize the restrictive character of these grounds, but also to exclude other grounds
which are established in other articles of the Constitution itself, such as Article 110,
which refers to certain modalities of electoral campaign finance. The Constitutional Court
has accepted that the grounds for this mechanism are only the ones stated in the
Constitution, but it also held that these are not restricted to the ones established in Article
18323.
20 Constitutional Court, decision C-037 of 1996, Vladimiro Naranjo, J. The Court warned: “Therefore, the
Court shall declare the unconstitutionality of the third and fourth paragraphs of the article under review
(Article 16 of the project of Statutory Law on the Administration of Justice), given that, as it has been
pointed out, the decision to entrust the Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice jurisdiction over the
requests for revision of judgments by the Contentious-Administrative Chamber that order the removal of a
Congressperson from public office, violates articles 113, 158, 183, 184, 228 and 237-5 of the Charter. It is
worthwhile to note that this declaration of unconstitutionality is not tantamount to an exclusion from the
legal system of those provisions or expressions of the article at hand that were also enshrined in article 17
of Law 144 of 1994, and were declared constitutional by this tribunal, because naturally, being contained in
such regulation, they maintain their force and their legally binding character”.
21 Constitutional Court, decision C-319 of 1994, Hernando Herrera Vergara, J.
22 Constitutional Court, decision C-037 of 1996, Vladimiro Naranjo, J. The Court stated: “As to the first
situation, it must be stated that the High Statute enshrines, as a general principle that must inspire the
Legislature’s regulating activities, a mandate by which the decisions of public corporations shall be adopted
by simple majority, except for the special cases restrictively provided for in the Constitution. But, should
the foregoing not be sufficient, the Court considers that the decision to establish a special quorum
requirement violates the autonomy of the Council of State to determine the manner, the procedure and the
necessary requisites to adopt, within its chambers, the decisions that correspond to its jurisdiction. It is
necessary, therefore, to declare the unconstitutionality of the expression ‘two thirds of’, included in the
provision under review”.
23 Id.
26
In regards to these grounds, Congress also tried to subordinate some of the ones
established in Article 183 to the existence of a prior criminal conviction, thus creating a
legal situation (“pre-judicialidad”) that would preclude the presentation of requests for
the removal of Congresspersons from public office grounded on the improper destination
of public resources or traffic of influences, insofar as no penal judgment imposing a
penalty existed. Congress included a paragraph in the Organic law of Congress with this
precise purpose. The Constitutional Court struck it down invoking the argument by which
criminal “pre-judicialidad” was a disproportionate restriction of the Council of State’s
exclusive jurisdiction, and of citizens’ access to justice24.
From this summary of the attempts made by Congress to restrict the functioning of the
figure at hand, it may be inferred that the latter is perceived as an effective (dangerous?)
tool by Congresspersons themselves, to such a point that they have tried to place
obstacles which would make its application very difficult. The routes which have been
chosen to try and restrict the efficacy of this figure have been varied, ranging from the
Organic Law of Congress to the Statutory Law on the Administration of Justice,
including the law that regulated the figure itself. This has been done without propitiating
public debate. These have been processes which have been ignored by the public opinion.
On the face of the decisions by the Constitutional Court, Congress decided to amend the
Constitution itself, with the aim of introducing some of the obstacles that the Court had
stopped. Availing itself of the referendum project presented by the President of the
Republic Alvaro Uribe on August 7, 2002, Congress added an article that broadened the
grounds for removal from public office to a set of procedural principles and
authorizations aimed at giving constitutional foundations to future legislation that could
restrict the application of the figure. For example, in the so-called “Point 7” of the
referendum: a) the establishment of qualified majorities for deciding on the removal from
public office was authorized; b) it was stated that there would be the possibility of filing
an appeal against the decisions by the Council of State; c) that the effects of removal
from public office would not always be tantamount to a perpetual “inability” to hold
public posts, but could be of lesser scope, in order to respect the principle of
proportionality, among others25.
24 Constitutional Court, decision C-319 of 1994, Hernando Herrera Vergara, J. Justice Eduardo Cifuentes
Muñoz expressed a dissenting opinion in the sense that the presumption of innocence made it reasonable to
create this type of requirement for such situations. In this same verdict, other provisions of the Regulations
of Congress were struck down on account of violating the principle of Uniformity of Subject-Matters of
Legislation –unidad de materia-.
25 Text of Question 7 of the Referendum, on removal from public office. Article 183 is amended in
numbers 2 and 3, and added numbers 6 and 7, as well as the paragraphs, of the following text: Article 183.
Congresspersons, deputies, municipal counselors and any other members of popularly eleted corporations
shall be removed from public office: 2. For failing to assist, without a justified cause, during the same
ordinary sessions period, to six (6) plenary meetings, or meetings of the respective commission, which have
been summoned to vote legislative act projects, legislative bills, projects for ordinances, agreements,
censorship motions or the election of public officers, as were the case. 3. For failing to assume possession
of public post within the eight (8) days that follow the date of installation of the corresponding corporation,
or the date in which they were called to assume post. 6. For violations of the regime of electoral campaign
finance, for purchase of votes, or for participating in “electoral migration”. 7. For procuring or accepting
27
It is interesting to observe that a referendum aimed a creating tools “against cheap
politics (politiquería) and corruption” ended up including some obstacles to one of the
most efficient mechanisms to counter these phenomena. It is noteworthy that in the
constitutional reform advanced by Congress itself in parallel to the discussion of the
referendum, new grounds for removal from public office were included, in particular a
very important one that consists in violating the upper limits set for campaign expenses
and contributions, as well as the other provisions on campaign finance, but not the
aforementioned obstacles.
The results of the voting of such referendum were very suggestive, and even more,
surprising. The contradictory message included in point 7 –a broadening of the grounds
for removal from public office, but also obstacles for its application- led this provision to
receive at the same time the highest percentage of affirmative votes (94,72%) and the
highest number (956,250) and percentage of blank votes (14,4%), which is the
equivalent, within the political context of this voting, to a vote aimed at preventing this
question of the referendum from reaching the participation threshold required for its
validity, should it obtain a majority approval. It also obtained a large amount of negative
votes –the second highest voting for NO-. The verdict of citizens led the original design
of the 1991 Constitution to remain unaltered. Point 7 received the second lowest voting
(22,6% of the total participation), a result which indicates that the people preferred not to
run the risk of changing an institution which has worked quite well. This reinforces what
I will state later on about the support given by public opinion to the removal of
Congresspersons from public office.
Should it be necessary, another indicator of the impact of removal from public office over
Congresspersons is their behavior in regards to impediments. It has become frequent for
members of Congress to declare that they are impeded from participating, every time that
there exists a risk of configuring a conflict of interests, with the purpose of shielding
themselves from an eventual request for their removal from public office. The
commissions that study the impediment declarations usually conclude that such
impediments do not exist, which protects the corresponding Congressperson, given that
the Council of State has not imposed any removals on the grounds of having taken part in
the discussion of a bill after the Congressperson’s declaration of a private interest has
been rejected as an impediment.
donations with public resources, whatever their form of approval or execution. Paragraph 2. The law shall
regulate the grounds for removal of the members of public corporations from public office, in order to
secure the principles of proportionality, legality, due process and culpability. Likewise, the law shall
establish the procedure to be observed and shall set a qualified majority to impose the sanction and its
modulation, in accordance to the principle of proportionality. This provision shall have no retroactive
effects. The President of the Republic is hereby empowered to adopt, within the term of 90 days, counted
from the moment of entry into force of this constitutional reform, by way of a decree with legislative rank,
the provisions contained in the present article. Paragraph 3. Any public officer who offers bureaucratic
quotas or benefits to a Congressperson, deputy or counselor, in exchange for the approval of a legislative
act project, a legislative bill, ordinance or agreement projects, shall be punished for incurring in major
mishbehavious with destitution from his or her job.”
28
Under certain circumstances, the opponents of a given legislative bill warn their
colleagues that if they vote it, they could incur in grounds for a conflict of interests,
which proves that Congresspersons understand that this tool fulfils a dissuasive function.
But the designation of a commission to study the eventual conflicts dissipates all fears,
for the above mentioned reason.
Hence Congresspersons have accommodated their behavior to the Council of State’s
case-law, availing themselves of the variations, exceptions or gaps that the latter has
identified. Perhaps the most protruding example of this political accommodation is posed
by the lack of application of the “Interests Registration Book”. As it has been noted, the
Council of State has affirmed that the omission in registering a private interest in said
book is not, in itself, a misbehavior that justifies the imposition of removal from public
office. Thereby, it is not only difficult for citizens to have access to this book –which is
public-, but in addition not all Congresspersons intend to have the reality of their
situations reflected in its pages.
Indicators of a political nature
To these indicators of an institutional type, other indicators of a political nature are
added, which also prove that the institution of removal from public office is perceived as
an effective tool to cleanse parliamentary practices.
In fact, it is especially significant that the broadening of the grounds for removal of
public office has been included in the two referendum projects against corruption which
have been presented to Congress up to present. In other words, whenever thought has
been given to sanctions which have dissuasive and effective force in order to give
importance to a new prohibition, it has always been attempted to turn such prohibition
into a new additional cause for removing Congresspersons from public office. Thus, in
the referendum project presented by the Government of President Pastrana to Congress at
the beginning of 2000, which was later retaken by a group of citizens who sought to
obtain the support of 10% of the electoral census -required to ensure the summoning of
the referendum even against the opposition of Congress-, it was proposed to broaden the
grounds for removal from public office so as to include the cases of those who violated
the campaign finance and publicity regimes, negotiated votes or serviced their campaign
contributors, among others26. Given that the President withdrew his support to this
26 Article 6 – Strengthening of Removal from Public Office. Members of public corporations shall be
removed from public office for failing to attend six plenary or commission meetings during the same period
of sessions; for violation of the regimes for the finance and publicity of electoral campaigns; for negotiating
with votes; for participating in electoral migration practices; for unduly intervening in the management,
direction or use of budget resources; for procuring the designation of public officers or the selection of
contractors, and for failing to declare their conflicts of interests while participating in the discussion or
approval of legislative bills that benefit their campaigns’ contributors. This does not affect the grounds
established in Article 183 of the Political Constitution, which shall also be applied to the members of
departmental assemblies and municipal and district councils. Governors, municipal and district mayors
shall also be removed from public office for violation of the prohibitions regime; for improper destination
29
confrontational initiative, because it included the repeal of the mandate of Congress; and
since the National Electoral Council later refused to admit the count of the signatures in
support of the citizen committee that promoted a popular initiative referendum as
signatures in support of the text of the articles itself, the project was ultimately not
submitted to popular vote. In contrast, the second referendum proposed in 2002 by
President Alvaro Uribe was submitted to popular decision on October 25, 2003, after a
long process of negotiation with Congress and after the review of the procedure by the
Constitutional Court. Point 7 of this referendum proposal broadened the grounds for
removal from public office, including the violation of the campaign finance regime, the
purchase of votes, the transfer of electors, among others. But at the same time, it included
the procedural obstacles I have mentioned before. The results of the voting, as I pointed
out, were a definitive manifestation of popular support both to the figure and to its
original design, established in the 1991 Constitution.
In addition, the polls indicated in both referenda that the proposal to broaden removal
from public office is highly popular. For example, in the last survey carried out before
October 26, 2003, it was the second most popular topic, with a 97% support among those
interviewed. In such a way that Colombians, in general, see in the institution of removal
from public office an appropriate tool to fight against corruption.
Nonetheless, the functioning of removal from public office has not been sufficient to
improve the image of Congress, which may not be taken as an indicator of inefficiency,
but as an evidence of just how deep the credibility of representative institutions in
Colombia has fallen. Furthermore, one should not discard the possibility that each piece
of news related to a judgment removing a Congressperson from public office reinforces
the opinion’s perception that there is corruption in Congress. The poll that is summarized
in the Table on the favorableness of institutions indicates that even though the positive
image of Congress has slightly improved, rising from 25% in 2000 to 39% in 2003, it still
remains as the institution with the lowest favorable perception by public opinion (see
Figure 19.3). The climate of optimism generated by President Uribe and the efforts made
by Congress to work more in tune with citizen expectations, have translated into an
increase of nearly 14% in favorable opinion, an important but by all means insufficient
achievement.
The results of the referendum’s voting also offer instructive indications in this regard.
The referendum point that sought to reduce the size of Congress –both of the Senate and
of the Chamber of Representatives- was the one that received the lowest voting among
all, which proves that, in spite of its negative image, Congress is considered as a
necessary democratic institution by the very same Colombians who disapprove certain
parliamentary practices. Another interpretation could suggest that the traditional political
majorities were successful in promoting the rejection of this proposal by way of
abstention.
of public resources; for violation of the electoral campaign finance and publicity regimes; for negotiating
votes and participating in electoral migration practices. The Council of State shall be competent to decide
upon the procedures for the removal of Governors and Mayors from public office.
30
Conclusions
On the grounds of the preceding analysis, it is possible to draw some lessons about the
figure of removal from public office as a tool in the fight against corruption. These may
be grouped into three categories: success factors, failure factors and sustainability
conditions.
Figure 19.3: General balance of removal from public office
General Balance of Removal from Public Office
88
65
42
17
35
11
2
4
1
64
5 5
1
5
8
10
0
14
2
0 1 0 0
2
0 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Conflicto de interés Incompatibilidad Inhabilidad Tráfico de influencias Indebida destinación
de dineros públicos
Inducción a contribuir
a partido político
(Art.110)*
Toma de posesión
tardía (Art. 183 num.
3)
Gestionar negocios
con el Estado (Art.
180num. 2) o
particulares que
administran recursos
públicos (Art. 180 num.
4)
Debido proceso Otras (sin especificar) Vínculo familiar con
autoridad (Art. 179
num. 5
Inscripción simultánea
de familiares (Art. 179
num. 6)
Inasistencias a
sesiones
Claims filed
Total de demandas presentadas
Demandas decretadas
Success factors
The main factors that explain the fact that in Colombia 42 Congresspersons have been
removed from public office, are the following:
In the first place, the factors related to the figure’s design stand out:
• The body with jurisdiction to impose removal from public office is a judicial
corporation which is independent from Congress and bears the highest status
within the corresponding segment of the Judiciary, which for the Colombian case
is the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction.
• Requests for removal from public office may be filed by the public, that is to say,
by any citizen, who does not have to prove an interest in the decision nor
31
demonstrate that he/she is among those who have felt deceived for having elected
or supported the relevant Congressperson.
• Congress has no mechanism to delay or prevent citizens from requesting the
removal of one of its members from public office, in such a way that it is
impossible for the esprit de corps to operate in order to protect a Congressperson.
• The procedure for imposing removal from public office is eminently judicial,
which confers legitimacy to it in matters of high significance and large political
implications.
• The definition of the grounds for removal from public office is based on objective
facts, in such a way that it is not necessary to prove bad faith, fault or imprudence,
which enormously alleviates the burden of proof that falls upon the plaintiff, and
allows the evidentiary stage and the judge’s argumentation to be less stringent and
more simple.
• The term given to the judge to adopt a final decision on the request must be brief,
in order for the institution to be repeatedly perceived as effective in a moment that
is close in time to the scandal that motivated the request for removal from public
office. Thus the figure is differentiated from ordinary judicial procedures, which
are traditionally slow and vexatious.
• The regulation of the figure must be controlled by an independent judicial body,
such as the Constitutional Court, in order to prevent Congress itself from
introducing hindrances or obstacles to the functioning of removal from public
office.
• The functioning of this figure must not be linked in its application or evolution to
the pressures of public opinion or of civil society sectors, which does not mean
that the latter may not contribute to its efficient operation. Its institutional design
must make it practically self-sufficient, and make its setting in motion depend on
the initiative of but one single citizen.
As to the factors of a political nature, the following are outstanding:
• The existence of a handful of activists who are willing to run the risks of
presenting requests for the removal of influential Congresspersons from public
office.
• A sustained opinion tendency in favor of the fight against corruption and political
transformation.
• Support by the communications media, through news coverage of the initiation of
processes for the removal from public office, and the corresponding public
hearings, as well as the final decision.
• The timely presentation of requests for the removal from public office, amid the
political scandal that gives rise to them.
Failure factors
The factors which have led to failures in imposing removal from public office in extreme
cases, or to exposing this figure to the risk of losing its effectiveness, are the following:
32
In regards to the factors of an institutional type, it is necessary to highlight the following:
• The power of Congresspersons to regulate removal from public office, albeit
unavoidable in a democracy, allows them to try and diminish its effectiveness
through the establishment of procedural rules of the game purported to hinder its
operation.
• The doctrines applied throughout the relevant case-law may create excuses and
gaps which can prevent the imposition of removal from public office in extreme
cases, even though the grounds have been defined in an objective manner.
• The extension of the principles of disciplinary law, or what is even more
counterproductive, of criminal law to the realm of removal from public office,
tends to distort this figure of citizen control over Congresspersons in cases of lack
of compliance with objectively defined minimum duties.
In regards to the factors of a political nature, it is worthwhile to underscore:
• The lack of public and periodical balances of the performance of this institution,
which indicate its achievements and its flaws.
• The indifference of the communications media towards institutional reforms that
restrict removal from public office.
• The accommodation of Congresspersons to the new rules of the game, not in
order to transform their political and parliamentary practices with the aim of
purifying them and making them more transparent, but in order to reduce the risks
of being removed from their posts on account of maintaining them. This is clearly
the case in matters of conflicts of interests, with the creation of commissions that
study the impediments formulated by Congresspersons and conclude that there is
no conflict at all.
Sustainability factors
Removal from public office has existed for 12 years in Colombia. This is very little time
for an institution. No substantial reforms that distort it have been materialized, even
though it has affected 42 Congresspersons, many of them quite powerful, and some of
them considered untouchable. All of this is significant and valuable. The most relevant
sustainability factors for this figure have been the following:
• The constitutional enshrinement of the essential features of removal from public
office, in such a way that it may be applied without the need for further legislative
developments. This preserves it from junctural reactions against it, and has
prevented its scope from depending on the main victims of its effective
application: Congresspersons.
• The existence of controls over attempts to distort the figure. This role was
entrusted to the Constitutional Court, which has verified whether the laws adopted
33
by Congress respect the profile and the spirit of the constitutional configuration of
removal from public office.
• The existence of a political current that believes in the benefits of the institution
and defends it, even if this force or movement is not majoritarian.
• The efficient functioning of the Council of State, which reaffirms its necessary
character, its importance and legitimacy.
