Celeste Amarilla: 'A mediocre high school graduate ordered the Court to prevaricate' against Kattya
Translated from Spanish, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Senator Celeste Amarilla strongly criticized Supreme Court of Justice ministers for rejecting Kattya González's appeal to regain her seat.
- Amarilla accused the ministers of being "forced to prevaricate" under orders from Horacio Cartes, whom she called a "mediocre high school graduate."
- The senator argued the court's decision ignored due process and the right to defense, suggesting political influence over judicial independence.
Senator Celeste Amarilla has sharply criticized the majority of Supreme Court of Justice ministers who voted to reject former senator Kattya González's constitutional action to reclaim her seat. Amarilla asserted that six magistrates were "forced to prevaricate" by orders from Horacio Cartes, the leader of the Colorado movement, whom she described as a "mediocre high school graduate." The constitutional guarantee filed by González was rejected by ministers Alberto Martínez Simón, Luis María Benítez Riera, María Carolina Llanes, and César Diesel Junghanns, along with judges Miguel Ángel Rodas Ruiz Díaz and Esteban Armando Kriskovich De Vargas. Amarilla questioned how these individuals, holding positions as professors, doctors, and Supreme Court members, could "prevaricate by superior order." She directly named Horacio Cartes as the political figure responsible for the decision, calling him "barely a high school graduate, a mediocre student his whole life." The senator expressed disbelief that recognized academics and jurists would issue a ruling that contradicts fundamental legal principles taught in universities. Amarilla believes the court's decision disregarded essential aspects of due process and the right to defense, which she argues were violated during the proceedings that led to González's loss of investiture. She voiced particular disappointment with Minister Alberto Martínez Simón, suggesting he may have altered his legal criteria under political pressure, questioning how he felt being "called to his home, given the line, and having to change his ruling." Amarilla also linked the ruling to alleged prior political meetings, stating the highest judicial body has become subordinate to political power. She claimed that members of the Supreme Court meet in informal settings where they are instructed on how to vote, confirming what she sees as Cartismo's decisive influence over state institutions.
Originally published by ABC Color in Spanish. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.