El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has dismissed Liduvina Escobar from the IAIP for leaking information and violating her impartiality obligations. / Images of the presidency and her IAIP.
The Administrative Litigation Tribunal of the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the former Commissioner of the Institute for Access to Public Information (IAIP) against the final dismissal issued by the President of the Republic Nayib Bukele on February 3, 2022, stating: declared to The illegality of his dismissal has not been proven.
Nayib Bukele has declared responsibility for managing Liduvina Escobar for three reasons. He assures her that she has failed to perform her mandated entity evaluation functions, that she has leaked information about the IAIP Agreement to the press, and that she has violated her public impartiality obligations. increase. The formula when taking action with an attorney against the IAIP. For this reason, Bukele ordered the immediate removal of Escobar from his position as IAIP Commissioner.
The Disputes Chamber’s resolution states that it will grant a request for clarification within three working days only in the case of a material error or if the sentence is “vague”, i.e. it does not allow an appeal.
In an appeal filed by his attorney, Ruth López, Escobar alleges that President Bukele violated the principles of legality and fairness because he “had a direct interest in the dismissal process.” He demanded that the salaries of the former civil servants be restored.
His allegation was that the Salvadoran ruler was “a judge and a party to the sanctions proceedings” against Liduvina Escobar. This is because the information allegedly revealed to the press concerned a resolution on a public version of the addendum presented by the President. Filed Nayib Bukele Ortez with his Probity Section and filed a lawsuit against regulations in the Access to Public Information Act issued by the Office of the President.
Now, the representative of the President of the Republic argued that the plaintiff “simply develops, without much intellectual effort, the theme of a situation that is supposed to be fair”, and that “the I am arguing a situation that has nothing to do with the syllogism that is being used.” Judges and some”.
In File 194-A-2019, an addendum to the Presidency Probability Section, a representative of the presidency noted, “While it is true that the information corresponds to the president,” the controversy and the parties “on the one hand identify the intelligence officials.” claim. Supreme Court’s third beneficiary and his IAIP. “It escapes the control of the president of the republic,” a presidential official claims.
The Attorney General’s Office, through Roberto José Rodríguez Escobar, indicated that plaintiffs failed to verify the alleged violations.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations were “completely unrelated to the conduct for which she was sanctioned.”
“The information leak directed sanctions administrative procedure refers to a journalistic note of La Prensa Gráfica dated 14 December 2020 when the IAIP-A1-45-2020 agreement was published..determined.. …this It closed with three votes in favor of no longer recording, including those of the session,” the dispute chamber claims.
The Controversial Court magistrate also rejected Liduvina Escobar’s claims regarding her case against the LAIP rules issued by the Office of the President of the Republic and the defendants’ interest in reforming the rules. He pointed out that all presidential decrees are the powers the constitution gives him.
Source: Diario Elmundo
