From a Punisher to a Presidential Regime
With this generous legal latitude, the AG was replaced a few times when it was really called for, as a last measure. No President in recent history used this prerogative lightly.
The Attorney General's Law was modified in February 2016, as requested by a wide coalition of civil society organizations, backed by the now extinct CICIG. The amendment was meant to protect the figure of the Attorney General from a politically driven decision by the President, establishing that basically only a court conviction could be a cause for removal before the term expired. So the basis of the dismissal went from any wide ranging political reason to an exclusive well founded penal accusation, from any reasonable annoyance to an alright conviction. In brief, the power to dismiss the AG was no longer the President’s.
For decades, the causes for removal of the Attorney General had been originally lax for good reasons. With this generous legal latitude, the AG was replaced a few times when it was really called for, as a last measure. No President in recent history used this prerogative lightly. There were a few voices of concern against this change in 2016, but the political push from civil society and CICIG was too strong at that time.
The 2016 amendment to the Attorney General's Law caused an unsuspected profound change in our political system. The country transitioned from a presidential regime to, in practice, a punitive or punisher regime. At first glance, this statement could seem like an exaggeration. But it is not with all things considered. Upon close examination, anyone can see that there are currently more legal requirements to dismiss the leading prosecutor than to remove the President, who is supposed to be the most important political figure of the system.
That brings us to a very discussed topic. Who can terminate the AG’s mandate before the appointed term? Right now, the only person who can terminate the AG’s mandate at any given time, it’s the AG itself, by quitting. There is practically no way to dismiss the AG before its term ends. This is what CICIG wanted back in 2016, but this should not be the case, here or elsewhere.
However, it would surely contribute to establishing a more stable legal system moving forward. Especially, one would hope for this to never be the case, if the country would ever have to deal with a very zealous AG who puts accusations and court trials over mediation and settlements, both options within the purview of the office, one would expect that some political figure above the AG, like a President type, who is accountable to voters and Congress could take, perhaps, a political decision to overturn an untenable legal confrontation.
From a Punisher to a Presidential Regime
With this generous legal latitude, the AG was replaced a few times when it was really called for, as a last measure. No President in recent history used this prerogative lightly.
The Attorney General's Law was modified in February 2016, as requested by a wide coalition of civil society organizations, backed by the now extinct CICIG. The amendment was meant to protect the figure of the Attorney General from a politically driven decision by the President, establishing that basically only a court conviction could be a cause for removal before the term expired. So the basis of the dismissal went from any wide ranging political reason to an exclusive well founded penal accusation, from any reasonable annoyance to an alright conviction. In brief, the power to dismiss the AG was no longer the President’s.
For decades, the causes for removal of the Attorney General had been originally lax for good reasons. With this generous legal latitude, the AG was replaced a few times when it was really called for, as a last measure. No President in recent history used this prerogative lightly. There were a few voices of concern against this change in 2016, but the political push from civil society and CICIG was too strong at that time.
The 2016 amendment to the Attorney General's Law caused an unsuspected profound change in our political system. The country transitioned from a presidential regime to, in practice, a punitive or punisher regime. At first glance, this statement could seem like an exaggeration. But it is not with all things considered. Upon close examination, anyone can see that there are currently more legal requirements to dismiss the leading prosecutor than to remove the President, who is supposed to be the most important political figure of the system.
That brings us to a very discussed topic. Who can terminate the AG’s mandate before the appointed term? Right now, the only person who can terminate the AG’s mandate at any given time, it’s the AG itself, by quitting. There is practically no way to dismiss the AG before its term ends. This is what CICIG wanted back in 2016, but this should not be the case, here or elsewhere.
However, it would surely contribute to establishing a more stable legal system moving forward. Especially, one would hope for this to never be the case, if the country would ever have to deal with a very zealous AG who puts accusations and court trials over mediation and settlements, both options within the purview of the office, one would expect that some political figure above the AG, like a President type, who is accountable to voters and Congress could take, perhaps, a political decision to overturn an untenable legal confrontation.