Original article: Congreso: Defensa del juez Antonio Ulloa presentó su respuesta a la acusación constitucional

Congress Reviews Defense of Judge Antonio Ulloa Amid Constitutional Accusation

The commission of the Chamber of Deputies, which is examining the constitutional accusation against Santiago Court of Appeals Judge Antonio Ulloa, heard from both the judge’s defense and the accuser during its latest session.

Opening the session, accuser Deputy Daniel Manouchehri (PS) detailed what he described as «dangerous connections» that Judge Ulloa allegedly engaged in.

Manouchehri asserted that the magistrate actively participated in cases involving his acquaintances: «He dined with them at night and ruled in their favor in the mornings,» the legislator charged.

The parliamentarian emphasized that those associated with attorney Luis Hermosilla are currently under criminal investigation, referencing Ulloa’s close relationship with him. Furthermore, Deputy Manouchehri stressed that any judge must recuse themselves when their impartiality could be compromised.

Due to these points, the Socialist legislator urged a decisive vote in favor of the accusation, stating, «to prevent the network of lawyer Hermosilla from infiltrating this Congress.»

Defense of the Judge

Representing Judge Antonio Ulloa, his lawyer Domingo Hernández (featured in the opening photo) presented the arguments contained in the response to the constitutional accusation (view full document here).

The attorney initially questioned the focus of the accusation on «media publications.» He also highlighted the judge’s latest evaluation, where he achieved a score of 6.7 within the Judiciary, citing landmark rulings and notable decisions involving the magistrate.

The lawyer emphasized that the Supreme Court had already decided to dismiss the removal of Judge Ulloa concerning this same matter. Hence, he argued that it is «unjust to judge him twice.»

It is important to recall that the Supreme Court, on September 30, ruled on the removal request filed against Ulloa. With a tie of 7 votes in favor and 7 against, the Supreme Court dismissed the removal, as the absolute majority of 11 members required to approve the sanction was not met.

In this line, the written response argues as a constitutional objection that the accusation is inadmissible since it involves the exercise of jurisdictional powers by the National Congress, which would violate the Constitution, asserting that «Congress cannot review the grounds or contents of judgments.»

Finally, the judge’s lawyer asserted that if this accusation were to pass, the Judiciary would be adversely affected «by losing a judge who is honest, integral, and responsible,» characterizing his conduct as «impeccable.»

What’s Next?

The accusing body will meet again on Monday, October 27, to hear from invited guests and expects to vote on whether the accusation is admissible in a session scheduled for Tuesday, October 28. Thus, the Chamber’s plenary may convene on Wednesday, October 29, to decide on the admissibility of the constitutional accusation.

Check the full text of the accusation here

The Citizen