Paraguay's Supreme Court Upholds Senate's Removal of Senator González

Paraguay's Supreme Court has upheld the Senate's decision to strip former senator Kattya González of her legislative investiture, rejecting her appeal against the move. The ruling, which occurred in February 2024, has been defended by Senator Natalicio Chase, who emphasized the independence of the legislative branch.

“

She was present and was notified. She did not appear to defend herself by her own decision, to ask for an extension or to make any request in the plenary that could help justify her non-defense.

Chase, speaking from a political rather than legal perspective, stated that the Supreme Court's decision rests on three main points. Firstly, he argued that sanctions imposed by Congress are not justiciable, meaning they cannot be reviewed by other branches of government without undermining congressional independence. Secondly, he addressed the validity of the Senate's internal regulations, suggesting that even if a regulation were in force, it could be deemed unconstitutional if it contradicted the constitution itself.

Regarding González's claim of a lack of defense, Chase asserted that the former senator was notified and present during the proceedings, even engaging in a three-day hunger strike. He contended that she voluntarily chose not to present her defense or request an extension, implying she had ample opportunity to do so. "She was present and was notified. She did not appear to defend herself by her own decision, to ask for an extension or to make any request in the plenary that could help justify her non-defense," Chase stated.

“

I believe that the Court's analysis is based on three main pillars. One, that the decisions of sanctions of the Congress are not justiciable. That is, they cannot be taken to another Power to analyze, otherwise they would not have the independence that the Powers claim to have.

Chase concluded by affirming his belief that the Court's verdict is "correct and just." He reiterated that the Senate's decision to remove González was appropriate and not subject to judicial challenge. While acknowledging the possibility of political interference in the judiciary, Chase maintained that the Court operates as an independent power, just as the Senate does.

“

We believe that the Court's ruling is correct and just.