Original article: Suprema remueve a juez Daniel Urrutia por caso «licencias médicas»: OTJ rechaza decisión y acusa «disparidad» con caso del juez Ulloa, vinculado a Hermosilla

Supreme Court Removes Judge Daniel Urrutia Over Medical Leave Licenses: OTJ Condemns Decision as Disparate Compared to Judge Ulloa’s Case

Judge Daniel Urrutia and two other magistrates were dismissed from their positions in the judiciary following a resolution from the Full Supreme Court, regarding judges who traveled abroad while on medical leave.

The president of the court, Gloria Ana Chevesich, explained that the session addressed the cases of five judiciary members, «for whom defenses were heard, but voting could not occur due to the Constitutional Court halting the processing of these cases.»

After two sessions, it was determined to «unanimously dismiss one judiciary member; remove two others by divided vote; and reject the dismissal of two judges. One because of a majority vote and the other because they were not serving as a judge during their leave,» Chevesich elaborated.

Upon the news being made public, immediate reactions emerged. The Organization of Judicial Workers (OTJ) expressed their «strongest rejection» of the removal of Judge Daniel Urrutia, «a leader of our organization, as it constitutes a serious infringement on labor freedom, due process, and the safeguards necessary to ensure judicial independence.»

«We regard it as particularly grave that this decision was made without providing adequate protection under the labor laws that safeguard our leader, which is explicitly recognized under Article 25 of Law No. 19.296. This guarantee aims to protect the exercise of union representation and prevent those defending the rights of workers from being arbitrarily removed from their roles,» they stated in a public declaration.

«Additionally, it is noteworthy that Daniel Urrutia was previously acquitted and exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him concerning the use of medical leave,» the OTJ reminded.

«It is difficult to understand how, regarding facts already examined by the Santiago Court of Appeals without imposing penalties, the Supreme Court opted for the most extreme measure available within our legal framework,» they added.

Disparate Criteria

Another issue raised by judicial workers relates to the inconsistent criteria of the Full Supreme Court, as «it is unavoidable to recall the case of Minister Antonio Ulloa, involved in serious matters concerning his connections to lawyer Luis Hermosilla, including questions about interventions in judicial appointments, leaked confidential information, and breaches of duty integrity.«

«Despite the gravity of these circumstances, the Supreme Court did not gather the necessary votes to remove him from office,» questioned the OTJ.

We will continue to provide updates.