Argentine Executive and Judiciary clash over Media Bill and intimidation of Judges
President Cristina Fernandez and the Argentine Judiciary branch are on a collision course after a federal court, despite all kinds of pressure and threats, decided on Thursday to extend an injunction referred to a controversial media bill which seems targeted to dismember the powerful Clarin Media Group, which has become to the eyes of the regime enemy number one.
Earlier in the day the Judiciary branch made public an exceptio1nally harsh release asking the Argentine government “to exercise its faculties within the boundaries of the procedural rules and avoid using direct or indirect mechanisms to pressure judges thus affecting their independence”.
The communiqué was released in support of the judges designated to rule the Media Law after they reported that their independence was being attacked by the Executive branch.
The communiqué, signed by the National Committee for the Judicial Independence protection, which belongs to the Argentine Supreme Court, the Courts Federal Board, the Judges Association, and the Magistrate’s Argentine Federation, came after Justice Minister Julio Alak increased the battle between the national government and the media group Clarín ahead of Friday’s injunction deadline, or 7D.
The minister had stated that if the Civil and Commercial Court extended the injunction filed by the Clarín Group, preventing the implementation of divestment Article 161, “beyond December 7”, “this would imply an uprising against a national law and generate a conflict of powers”.
The minister made these statements when announcing a further challenge to the decision made by the Civil and Commercial Court on Tuesday, in which the court rejected a challenge against one of its judges, Francisco de las Carreras.
The Federal court target of the Cristina Fernandez wrath decided on Thursday to extend the injunction exempting Grupo Clarín from having to disinvest and sell several television and radio licenses after Friday in order to comply with the new Media Law.
The Court decided to extend the measure until the lawsuit filed by Grupo Clarín in protest of the alleged unconstitutionality of article 161 in the Media Law. The decision was signed by Judges Francisco de las Carreras and Maria Susana Najurieta.
Justice Minister Julio Alak assured that the ruling of the Civil and Commercial Court over the Media Law “confirmed what we have been claiming,” and stated that the government “will call for the annulment of the ruling” via the “per saltum” resource.
”Tomorrow (Friday) we'll present the annulment request before the Court via the per saltum,“ because ”this ruling is absolutely arbitrary, with severe contradictions aimed to the extension of the absurd injunction,“ the minister assured during an interview with a local television program.
The minister assured that ”there are only a few days left for the background sentence, that could be in a week, or maybe two or three, but the application of the law is inexorable.“
Alak admitted that ”an injunction could be applied with a decree, but not over a law of the National Congress, requested by an economic group and that has been approved three years ago.”
The 'per saltum' law regulates an extraordinary appeal to let the Supreme Court decide on “serious institutional cases” which require a “swift, definite solution” without going through lower courts first
The head of the audiovisual communications watchdog Afsca, Martín Sabbatella, who will be controlling the divestment under Article 161, assured that the recent ruling by a Federal Court extending the injunction over article 161 of the Media Law that benefits Grupo Clarín is “shameful” and warned that the Government will ask the Supreme Court to intervene “so they can review this decision that greatly damages democracy.”
Sabbatella also said that the ruling “proves that we were right to say that the judges who fly to Miami on Clarin’s expense end up becoming a part of their legal team.”
At the same time, he regretted that the Argentine courts “are not prepared to fight against corporations because a large part of it is colonized by those corporations.”
Until late 2007 when former president Nestor Kirchner signed a generous restructuring of the Clarin media group debts and was awarded further licences, the group was considered a faithful ally of the government. However following the 2008 farmers’ conflict which almost knocked out the administration of Cristina Fernandez when she was forced to roll back taxes, the Clarin media group became number one enemy for having given ample television, broadcast and written coverage to the protests and demonstrations.
Cristina Fernandez retaliated with the 2009 Media Bill that seriously limits the number of television and broadcasting licences any group can hold, and the Clarin group effectively is extremely powerful and the implementation of the bill will certainly weaken it.
Suggested Stories
-
Jun 20th 2013
Falklands’ fresh with referendum results will challenge the C24 and Argentina
-
Jun 20th 2013
Cristina Fernandez admits defeat to the Supreme Court but promises to fight on
-
Jun 20th 2013
Argentina’s economy recovering in May and trade surplus above estimate
-
Jun 19th 2013
Blow for CFK: Supreme Court rules unconstitutional Counsel of Magistrates reform
63 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
You Argies seem to have a fixation with colonisation :-)
Older people that actually have an education and life experience do not fall for the crap the government are selling, that is why the radicals want (and got) the voting age down so they can get teenager brainwashed by the crazy queen to counter sanity .
Dec 07th, 2012 - 07:17 am
Interesting. Of course we have seen this happen before haven't we? Quite recently, much closer to home.
uk government voted not to control the press or move a motion for a new law retraining them. Maybe we should go down the RG route, then you can print all the propaganda you wish with no opposing view of challenge.
Says it all really, targeted for providing the news and not covering it up.
At least the judiciary are willing to be principled and fight for the freedom of the press.
Seems there are some people in Argentina with honor, dignity and decency who are willing to fight the corrupt government.
Democracy 101.
The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the trias politica principle,[1] is a model for the governance of a state (or who controls the state). The model was first developed in the Roman Republic as part of the unmodified Constitution of the Roman Republic.[2][3] Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no branch has more power than the other branches. The normal division of branches is into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary.
Love the bit about no branch having more power than the other.
There Christina, see, that's how it works, not hard is it?
Go Judges.
However very disturbing how the courts are being allowed to be intimidated and threatened by the very thing they are there to prevent, Crustina and her Dictatorship agenda.
No doubt, Worrying times for Argentinians, but i will sleep soundly tonight :)
its just about media licences ,lets hear all the arguments
“What's the point of being President if I can't do what I want?”
keep on hoping..continue to write maybe you can catch an Argentine fly/fish here......
He who controls the law, controls the people, simple concept really.
It's going to be an interesting week for CFK, between 7D and 15D when the Libertad case goes to the IMO. Will she survive?
Our serving police are banned from belonging to any polical party or holding political office, so are the serving judiciary.
No doubt they La SS Campora will refer to democracy as undemocratic, again.
Dec 07th, 2012 - 07:47 am
” that is why the radicals want (and got) the voting age down so they can get teenager brainwashed by the crazy queen to counter sanity .”
The SNP have done something similar for the independence referendum in 2014.
Supreme court justices go through the most intense Senate hearing that sometimes go go on for two weeks. Usually they are confirmed but sometimes they get kicked out. The President here does not have absolute power to do as they wish.
Law here is interpretional until it moves up to SCOTUS and then it becomes defined in one way or another. That is why they are choosen based on they rulings and sometimes the administration is disappointed becasuse of they way act once they become a judge becasue they are truly independent.
Well done the Judiciary!!!!!
Freedom of the press
Freedom of speech
Independent judges,
Or
CFK controlled press
CFK controlled speech
CFK controlled judges,
And these indoctrinated argie bloggers laugh at us,
Just goes to show just who is indoctrinated and lives in a controlled state.
.
I expect the Judges and families will be under intense pressure now.
So Arg may be out of the car mfg business whether they want to or not.
Equally they should not be 'the official Opposition'.
But they should be one of the key 'checks and balances' that a country uses to nudge the government, the administration and the president into an ethical modus operandi ... and keep it there.
The 'media' has an ethical responsibility itself to operate within the best word and spirit of the laws of the land - usually encompaseed within, and extending in detail, the Constitution...
For instance, it must not hack into any persons private information, correspondence or communications. Neither should it use unlawful methods to investigate the structures and practices of governance.
'In The Public Interest' is insufficient justification.
An ethical media should be protected by the people of a country AT ALL COSTS.
Such a media can, through its actions and information, bring a deviant goverment to book.
But all this needs an independent judiciary.
Can Argentina become this clean?
The Judiciary Branch is composed of federal judges and others with different jurisdictions, and a Supreme Court with nine members (one President, one Vice-President and seven Ministers), appointed by the President with approval of the Senate, who may be deposed by Congress.
What does that mean? Are “federal judges and others with different jurisdictions” all appointed by the President or is it just the Supreme Court?
As much as I dislike the US's Fox News and MSNBC with the possible exception of RedEye (the only talking head show I can tolerate), I'm thankful that they are up and running. If GWB or Obama were to make moves in the same style as CFK in the name of “media diversity” solely against media outlets that didn't give them friendly copy, people would be up in arms. But in Argentina and Venezuela, we are constantly told by their apologists that their case is “different” and “special.” Bull Hockey.
And pardon me while I drop the bomb on commenters with whom I'm often in agreement/sympathy, BUT... in scenarios where bad government is SO entrenched that the only way to get to the bottom of something is indeed “questionable information access*” then so be it! (This does not include going through Hugh Grant's cell phone records though as much as his screen presence threatens my world's peace, and let's not get near the godawful case that is currently setting what I still think is bad legal precedent in the UK. But as Pops with his example in #38, crucial ethical investigative journalism often requires polite and sometimes legal boundaries to be crossed.)
*If you know what I mean**.
** And I think you do.
Getting to the position where a Minister is accusing the courts of an “uprising”, and a “conflict of powers”!
In many ways this issue is one of the most critical for Argentina, whether the Government (whoever it is at the time) seemingly not having the ability to draft laws that the courts seem willing to enforce, can bend the judiciary to their will.
Argentina's president has too much power vested in one person. I enjoyed reading of Argentina's judiciary balancing out what should be considered illegal actions in Argenina. We shall see how the SC rules on this as there already submitted they per saltum motion.
The trolls must be re grouping from having their asses waxed all week.......just wait until the thrid week of this month.....lol
*(Just ~what~ jackrabbit IS CFK trying to race? ;-)
Or free press, ect,
It just seems so natural to these controlled states to demand
And get people to do their bidding .without complaint,?
.
briton......they like to refer to it as a “democratic press”.....lol
I bet that brought a few glum faces out.
we feel sorry for these argies, they are walking stright to hell,
and the wicked witch is close behind them.
I think you must have misread my post,thats OK We all do it
#Captain Poppy
Thank you for edifying explanation,its much as I thought
This was the answer by c. f. k to a group of students of comunication in 2008, at one of our universities, when she was asked about the project for a new broadcast law, which was included in her electoral platform in 2007. It's true that during nestor kirchner's presidence the relation with the clarin group was good, however just mediocre people, like some journalists and forists who love emphasizing about that aspect, woudn't take into account the social context of 2003, when kirchner took office, in that moment, the country had 53% of poor people, 22% of unemploit people, beside, the nation was in defoult, so, with that deplorable context, it's was obvious that kirchner was going to need clarin's help, i dont think that despite the miserable context of 2003, he was going to think about democratizing the media, dont you think?. On the other hand, it is often said by the media which is against the government, and by some ignorant people who buy so easily what it says, that c. f. k's gov. handles the justice, and claim for an independet justice, this was also one of the claims of many protestors n the last cacerolasos, however they omit to include that justice must be independent not just from the gov. but also from the powerfull corporations, like clarin. The entails between clarin and those judges were argued with solid fundaments, by minister alak, that's why it was obvious the chamber was going to extend the injunction for clarin. Anyway not everything is lost, i trust our suprem court which is very prestigious, despite that in some oportunities it had some contradictions. C. f. k.'s expressions in 2008 show that she was absolutly right, the law was aproved in 2009, and clarin could get all the legal injuctions it wanted, in order to not to comply with the new law. However i understand that some people who are sick of hate against c. f. k., are very happy with this news.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As CFK cant fly,
We will leave the impossible to superman if that’s ok.
Dec 08th, 2012 - 05:50 pm
One of the major good policies done by Nestor Kirchner, was the selection of a very independent Supreme Court.
This doesn't mean that CFK can now undermine his one good deed by pressuring the Judiciary in the way she and her ministers have over the last ten days!!!!
if there is shown to be no democracy in Argentina, then Mercosur will have to remove them. They'll be in South American Limbo.
When the judges extended the stay, some people I know in Argentina felt a shimmer of hope that maybe it was the start of some change.....but then again maybe not.
Dec 09th, 2012 - 10:40 pm
For impeachment, they also need a Congressional 2/3 majority, which although almost non existent, the opposition will not give them over this!!!!!!
Someone who is not afraid to 'kick the pricks'.
If you really cared about having an independent justice, you would criticise also the shameful entails between clarin and the cámara en lo civil y comercial. Do you really think that after what minister alak explained about the relation between both parts, you can say that the chamber is independent from clarin?, what would you say, if you see on the news that a judge who had to dictate a judgment where the government is one the parts, it's discovered that the judge had entails with c. f. k's government?, would you believe in the independence of that judge?, i don't think so. Like i said in my comment 50, it is often said that c. f. k's government handles the justice, and one of the claims of the last cacerolasos, was the claim for an independent justice, however many of those hipocrites and you, omit that justice must be independent not just from the governmnet, but also from the corporations. Allthough i support c. f. k's government, i dont' deny that her government has contradictions and some very negative aspects, because i'm not neather injudicious nor hipocrite, but if she decides to take such a difficult decision like sending to the congress a project for a new broadcast law, which doesn't allow the concentration of oligopolic groups for any mediatic corporation, it's someting that should be recognized too. Your comment 28 is really pathetic.
Looks like you have hit a nerve with Broken Axle @61!
Keep up the good work. ;o)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!