Who protects the Constitution from bad politicians?

Argentina is witnessing unexpected convergences among political figures, with once staunch adversaries discovering shared interests under specific political circumstances. This phenomenon, often described in the Anglo-Saxon world as politics making for strange bedfellows, is particularly evident in recent debates surrounding the judicial conviction of former President Cristina Kirchner.

From sectors traditionally aligned with the left, the argument has been made that Kirchner's situation requires a "political" rather than a judicial solution. Conversely, individuals from historically different political positions have even suggested that Congress should intervene to nullify a court's decision. Despite linguistic differences, both viewpoints share a fundamental premise: the idea that a final court judgment can be reviewed, neutralized, or corrected by political bodies when its consequences are deemed inconvenient.

This trend raises a more serious concern than mere partisan disputes. Modern constitutions were designed precisely to prevent state powers from encroaching on each other's jurisdictions, judges adjudicate, legislators legislate, and administrators govern. While the system may function imperfectly, the principle of the separation of powers is a cornerstone of citizen liberty. It is therefore surprising to see leaders who publicly champion republican values readily accept proposals that constitute blatant political interference in judicial decisions.

The article poses a critical question: If Congress can nullify a sentence because a case is deemed to have institutional relevance, what principle would prevent it from doing the same tomorrow for any other judicial decision that proves politically inconvenient? This question extends beyond the specific case of Cristina Kirchner to encompass all citizens. Constitutional guarantees are not intended solely to protect those we find agreeable; they were established to safeguard individuals who, at any given historical moment, find themselves in a disadvantageous position relative to power. When politics begins to correct judicial sentences, the discussion shifts from the fate of an individual to the very validity of the rule of law. Argentina's recent history, the article suggests, offers cautionary examples, such as the political reaction to the Muiña ruling by the Supreme Court, which allowed the application of a "2x1" sentencing benefit to a convicted perpetrator of crimes against humanity. Within days, Congress passed legislation aimed at neutralizing the effects of that ruling.