El TC tiene jurisprudencia “que permite la nulidad de los fallos” 03/12/19 #TC #EloyEspinoza


all present to our first
invited the magistrate of the court constitutional doctor eloy prickly
saldaña magistrate how are you going to put am night is always a pleasure
be here if today the prosecutor joseph sunday Perez has said that the resolution that
Keiko Fujimori released the ruling of the constitutional court is not legitimate and
presents vices you are part of constitutional court you voted with
the magistrate ledesma and the magistrate looks miranda and I ask if
matches what the prosecutor says Perez there are some things to clarify
first of all we vote for a unworthiness that explained that to me already
case there was in the general line of the historical jurisprudence of the court has
been that when there is already a final pronouncement of the court
supreme and to which he asked the same that there is no constitutional court
more than saying you vote for him for pose a problem in that space already
such case if it goes then there is no more what to say
the vessel was the caveat in the case a bad heredia that then that by some
reason the final instance of power court the superma court has not
pronounced what was it that happened not bad inheritance in a bad inheritance then
a cassation was raised that is the appeal by which he knows the supreme already and he will
said no when he insisted on one last appeal the complaint so that you have the
matching was told we are two different cases but of course in the case of
Fujimori action is legitimate on Judgment in the case of Mrs. Fujimori
I think it’s a wrong mistake with all about my colleagues because
because we talk about a habeas corpus with links that means that has to
have violation of items due process that generates the violation of the
personal freedom and what happens then carlos then talk then
that he considers for a fact or future then very respectable in the
evaluation but for the future fact is not open a violation of those elements
the procession or directly to the person and colleagues consider sardón ferrero
and blue consider me that if they were violated all elements personal freedom
but because due process was violated among them the wrong mistake you have
have to vote again as you are asking the prosecutor of the judiciary there
alternatives to look first even when it is already public knowledge the
text for the networks code i’m not committing no incident
in all this time I think even a boy transition has it in hand then
the then what is the attorney looks more like a request for
nullity than to a true request clarification is not true what has been
said in some authors the court constitutional from the cardosa case
You have already said that there are sentences that they can have serious vices in
Remediable procedure motivation or whatever Mauritius
substantive violation of powers of other institutions violation of comptes
of violation of the precedents set by the court and so on in the
case the ruling keiko fujimori meets those requirements we deduct forgiveness the
prosecutor of the judiciary what they is asking is that art again the
accuse a lack of congruence that is a reason for motivation that
incongruity motivates the tc vote of again the fault well if yes so it is
that a position of understanding be assumed as this nullity null does not exist
that’s why I go then if it’s a bug of the features that you are
describing tonight can be your trial the ruling that releases a
memory a null failure that I can not say why be and forward opinion what
What I can say is that I do believe the fault that was taken is a wrong mistake
and that we have jurisprudence that allows the nullity of the years and there
I stay then what I can also say is that when there
lack of understanding of what is he says no nullity is reached if he doesn’t know
can raise a clarification as there are mechanisms to face the
problem and there we have just the different nuances of masters but that
also the public the prosecutor’s text candle and the fiscal self perez of masters but
in the text presented by the attorney of by judicial
you are based on article 121 of constitutional procedural code that
specifically refers to this situation it is possible then that you can to
having the concrete answer is possible that this ruling can be voted again
and in any case that who decides the situation is what the 121 puts is the
possibility of a challenge of a resolution when speaking in no
only in Peru just see that a neighboring court like the Colombian and others
more when talking about nullity of sentences is because there are serious vices
in rectifiable that is the resolution no It can hold because it is so flawed
that could not be handled and those exceptionally declares the same
court the president in this case no you vote is that we vote
now there is going to be a problem like that that a nullity is raised
what is going to be discussed as null the votes of the three the votes of the
four votes seven would controversy seems to be in the vote of
magistrate ramón the controversy in reality is in everything because finally
from our position already the case was resolved whether we like it or not for it
official power 2 what then why if the case was resolved we
we invoke that in the criminal proceedings do the analysis in more detail or
call sasaki other then two there are does not correspond to a constitutional judge
enter to make an evaluation as if it was a criminal judge what with everything
respect makes the vote of blume wrong sardon and ferrero then there are many
elements for which here could have some level of discussion there would be
to analyze the speaker in more detail that continues to be the case in this
will have to explain to us if there are elements of
trial for an annulment for a clarification or for a nullity or
indeed for nothing we will have to give in your vote in the miranda channels and
ledesma narváez in the argument number 42 you say it turns out with everything
respect necessary to make some annotation first of all if the magistrate is
willing to incorporate new elements or after the presentation of the
demand should ask the reason Therefore, it only takes into account the
Congress dissolution refers to what that we used as an argument and not for
example the testimony of Mr. I do you call a taxi in the event that
should or can discuss this again ruling released by Mrs. Fujimori on
Yoshiyama’s testimony must incorporate with the precedent that is
sitting Mr. bouquets by incorporating new items
is that it depends if first if it is approved a new a new vision of the case a
second depending on the approval of that new vision of the case because since
our perspective before entering discuss then what the supreme said what
that you have to enter to discuss is if you can already discuss what the supreme said
and if the supreme his pronouncement you have to consider it with a
final pronouncement good night the pastors is already resolved the matter the
supreme said it’s 18 months and just Mrs. Fujimori would have to go back to
be of water until you have a prison preventive until 18
months now yes you say we will not enter at the bottom of the discussion and incorporate
all the elements that have come later in that context I can enter
if you call up here and a lot of more things depends as i tell you jaime yes
If this is declared null and if it is declared null under what considerations is this
nullity for you for you should incorporate testimony
for me there are no more cases to solve because the supreme court and the
Supreme Court resolution has no vice as to leave her of age
but in the evaluation of the restoration of the court is not that that’s habeas
corpus is raised against the options del por bojan yes and if the resolution of the
judiciary were firm were correct there is no there is no element of
questioning is just saying me I refer to the yoshiyama fat factor but
that is why the factor my name is is important if transcendental matters for
the substantive criminal process is indispensable for change the decision of a prison
preventive that has been lifted or not it depends on what perspective you put if
you consider how we consider magistrates bad magistrate miranda and I
that the matter was well resolved by the judiciary and that shouldn’t have been said
less than 18 months for keiko fujimori as for any other person in
that same situation then there is no longer discussion about it is called sasaki what
that afterwards what you owed happen is that mrs fujimori
I turned 18 months in prison preventive as resolved by the court
supreme this is because there were already elements enough in the pronouncement to
justify that there was a risk of interference in the treatment of
according to what the prosecutor said you can make majority judgment and I
I mean the fault you are referring to the ruling cannot make judgment of
majority if the basics are contradictory that seems to be what
is happening yourself is saying you agree with that opinion
let’s go carefully because if the case is poses in the discussion goes over there me
they will accuse advance opinion Then I go back a little to explain the
categories for each to take out their deduction
on the specific issue is if I what I’m posing is a clarification
clarification is just being able to say hey what you said is not understood
well explain the best if what you are posing is a nullity or that is to
what goes deep when a new pronouncement earlier not the
null then the parameter of what is going to evaluate changes significantly
minors and there you have to put on then finally this how are you going to understand
as sep and when you ask for a new pronouncement or only understanding
the literalness what is that clarification it will be understood nullity as requested
clearly the prosecutors or are there going to be hey here is one thing I don’t understand
that that dark in the wording is because I am the best and that is nuclear
it was if he could tell us tonight the transit opinions the points of
view maybe the conversations I don’t know if the discussions between you seven to
arrive at this sentence that frees the Mrs. Fujimori and talked about transits
because it seems that not only on the subject fujimori but on other issues too
some magistrates change their minds quickly seems to jump from one and
another and another we go in parts first term is accused from outside that the
Mr. Ramos had a different opinion regarding the habeas corpus of the
mrs fujimori that is he thought and reflected in his deliberations go with
respect to the lady I lovely me I have to deny that
I can say that Carlos Ramos went to talk with me well in advance
and told me that to him it seemed to her that Mrs. Fujimori
should be released in pressure preventive that told me how many
days in advance if published if it is that the case within the court is me
don’t share your position i don’t share it so far but I respect and carlo in
that sense yes I can I must be clear that Carlos not that at least in the jurisdiction
of what we know does not change opinion that I do not agree with
its fundamentals is something else but we we value myself and some of the colleagues
he told us clearly that for him keiko Fujimori was to be released
for you the vote of habeas corpus was 4 3 3 1 3
that’s exactly what they ask us decide jaime that’s precisely what
they ask us we decided it was our clear man
it’s hard to understand why he knows that it’s 313 the thing is different
it’s different if it’s different because yes 313 should not have been released
Mrs. Fujimori, there you have to see finally if the third one is
irreducible plays the logic of the vote Dirimente of who presides over the court
but that would not be one would be 4 it depends where eloquent would have to
check it out on that i can’t advance opinion magistrate ledesma the day
Friday, September 27 in the weekly Hildebrandt in his thirteen said that both
she as you are considered in the full constitutional court as
adversaries to fujimorismo you subscribed These statements I am neither pro nor
On the contrary, what I do is do my job I respect the opinion that
may have Marianela give him more about me
perspective but I think it’s already adversary of fujimori would have to
ask her and me what I understand that what you have told us
afterwards he said in the interview in question they understand it as
adversary humor and that is seeing today in criminal headquarters that we open in
what state is it in the matter seeing it with the relationship prosecutor but
here’s one thing harwin the judges constitutional no
and we must act as operators nobody’s politicians but you say and
I remember well she said there are those who perceive it do not place it as
adversary to fujimorismo understanding this assertion
there will also be supporters of fujimorismo in tc
I am a supporter of the work of the constitutional interpretation
it was a surprise the choice of the president of the court
constitutional on Monday because the voiced up to what I remember in my
cuts were you and were the magistrate or was magistrate ferrer or
Mrs. Ledesma had compromised her I vote for you to be
elected next to magistrate miranda and not only next to magistrate miranda or
I don’t want to go into this kind of situations I think my responsibility
regardless of any charge is with publicizing the constitution the
parameters to protect them but it just said that not only with
you but have generated looking with someone else and is that there are some means
they have said it I don’t have to hear it we have been in the office
Manuel Miranda channels up to two minutes before the elections who is this manuel
miranda canals marianela ledesma carlos Ramos and eloy prickly saldaña eloy
spiny saldaña went to the presidency Marianela Ledesma was going to the
vice presidency being to enable the possibility that if we stay more than
one year then she was the Presidency of the Court Carlos Ramos
repeated on the set in the center constitutional studies and manuel nos
supported poly has been president and vice president of the court i’m not
lying that is an objective fact and the same magistrates
when the plenary enters and the proposed at that time that either
president recognizes that there were compromised your vote for another by another
ato plan for a candid for example of three this is and finally ends
changing the direction of your vote and then proposing ferrero to
vice president there is I’m not going to make value judgments but that was what
that happens that meeting to which you hint was the same day the
Monday ended 958 because at 10 it will be the voting some went to the
services and others went directly to altar to cel instead of voting that is
between 958 the meeting ended in the office of magistrate miranda
channels and 10 o’clock in the morning who went to the bathroom each by his side
Mrs. Ledesma thought to vote for you at 9 58 and at 10 good because
let me at least make two of renault or not I’m not describing what
just crying i mean changes minutes what I say
that you have the certainty that regardless of whether or not we are in
the court and while we are in the court are going to have magistrates going
to defend the right until the last institutional rights before in the
country without political colors without economic preferences what to
we have to comply and do comply with the constitution is not right
those words I greet you but if I to certain time I am with a person
that is supporting me and suddenly in the vote votes z when he stayed with me
to something happened I am not going to make judgments of value are some value courses made you
I ask facts that happened the facts are described there I don’t know no but nobody to
958 and the ten happened something there is a proposal of magistrate ferrero to the
magistrate ledesma when we were in the plenary session in magistrate ledezma
recognized that he would support a candidate but that the proposal was
temptress and ended up changing and ended up voting in
another sense and herself later ended up proposing as vice president
to ferrero senator he said in case of the challenge I think it’s
important to ensure nobody but us that whoever speaks to him in court has
concerned about sentences in defense of women’s rights
here it is not understood as it is a disqualification high to women who
they have a role every day very important in the country that
they are the majority of the country and most strong in the country but if what I
you ask what happened that’s what happened what happened is we had a coordination
an agreement an agreement comes a alternative proposal and then which
you were surprised yes to confess that yes and not only me then those who
we had been at the meeting and the things ended as they ended up but
we will continue working for the institution talking to her later
I didn’t like her either but you don’t look for it either I don’t understand
why would I have to do it felt betrayed by her I’m not interested
make such comments with everything respect think that this has been
labeled as the historic triumph of women in court
constitutional being she the first president of such a reputable agency I
explained that the backroom the interlocks described in this
abrupt change I do not know if they disclose the
choice and what I comment are made which have already been commented by several
newspapers but not even comment there are already several newspapers from sign
even different politician they have put those events and me what I
froze that I stay is confirm do growths and the surprise of a change
criterion but retired reiterator whatever outside the condition the commitment
unavoidable for doing the work that we corresponds as constitutional judges
Beatriz constitutional lawyer ramírez is written in your account
‘twitter’ something very interesting I know I want to comment to see what it says go to
have her the adobe of the election of the first president of tc she says that
he cited it so that its management lasts that of Mrs. Ledesma must not have
renewal of mandated magistrates defeated but will assume as president the
august vice president but if the congress to be voted on
January chooses not the magistrates what happens if the congress elects new magistrates
we will have to see what criteria he chooses at this moment if you choose six we are leaving
the six then and the only one left with current mandate is the elect
vice president ferrero who would assume the presidency if you choose less then
would have to see if you leave what has been historical custom and regulations
historical that we decide who they are the ones who leave or welcome a
proposal that the executive raised in his moment setting a priority of
less from oldest to least ancient it should be seen but what the
lawyer ramirez in the sense that yes one is chosen
this of the renewal is to say that the Mrs. Ledesma’s mandate as
tse president is held in that no there must be renewal of magistrates is
a very respectable appreciation of Beatriz for which I have the greatest
sympathy but we are talking in the scope of speculation if the
judges we don’t do speculation there is a damage an affectation a blow a
institutional breakdown of tc with the choice of the lady
ledesma for you let’s see that each one gets his own
calculations what I understand is that we are going
to continue working with it constancy with the same effort until
the end but the block breaks was not a block you see is safe then
that are always always rule things you throw Mrs. ledezma and the
magistrate miranda good carlos too we were going to venues was going a little
here a little over there that what happens is that you have to understand a schoolboy not
play with a logic of door soft closed a collegiate is the concertation
of wills under related elements and in that sense there were greater affinities no
it is doubt between them that will happen willing i have crystal ball then
the truth is that among those affinities there was a scenario for
handle that scenario has not occurred for the reasons that are now for
now for everyone known for different media we will see
tomorrow they will evaluate the competition demand in conversations assumptions to avoid what
we have children but I can tell you something very generic which is what is going to
consider there in principle but Chia has asked for reports on
them what has been raised there in several institutions they have asked for
called amicus curiae the friend of judge illustrated the judge by the
importance of what is the work of ombudsman then it has
allowed the ex to that report what do verbally on it at the hearing and
there are several reports that could present in writing we will listen to
the lawyers will listen to the reports and based on that we no longer
we will pronounce by a precautionary average if we don’t work on the bottom of the
control but as already said until you get enough
would change the facts about all the election calendar or calendar
election goes and that’s a trend of the jurisprudence of the court since the
lizana case then but in fact the causes are to be resolved and for
try to solve in the best way possible in the shortest possible time very
ok it’s spiny doctor saldaña many thank you for this interview has been very
interesting to talk with you as always thank you forever
available because I think the work of the constitutional judge is to explain to
zoom in to help you better understand which it is work what we can do and what
that we cannot do the magistrate of constitutional court eloy espinosa
saldaña with us let’s

21 Responses

  1. Benito Huamán Julca says:

    ES POSIBLE ANULAR EL FALLO DE BLUME Y SU CAMARILLA

    SEGÚN ELOY ESPINOZA ELTRIBUNO OPUESTO A BLUME Y SU CAMARILLA:

    "EL TC TIENEN UNA JURISPRUDENCIA QUE PERMITE NULIDAD"

    Los Fiscales Vela y Domingo van por buen camino.

    Al tacho la tesis de Antero y otros constitucionalistas pro-CORRUPTOS.

  2. fer Inf says:

    CUANDO EL ODIO ROJIMIO LLEGA AL MAXIMO…..ROJETES LA DISOLUCION DEL CONGRESO ES UN HECHO CONCRETO DE PUBLICO CONOCIMIENTO INCUESTIONABLE POR ESO SU INTROCUCCION AL PROCESOONES VALIDA…..EN CAMBIO LA DECLARACION DE JORGE YOSIYAMA ES SOLO UN DICHO, UNA APRECIACION QUE REQUIERE SER CORROBORADO Y ESO NO HA OCURRIDO, ENTONCES NO ES UN HECHO CONCRETO, CIERTO, SINO DUDOSO Y REQUIERE SER CORROBORADO Y POR ELLO NO ENTRA A LA EVALUCION

  3. Jeremy Parker says:

    ESPERO QUE ESTA MEDIDA DE VOLVER A VOTAR QUE DE ACUERDO A LOS ANALISTAS POLITICOS ES POSIBLE SE HAGA LO MAS ANTES POSIBLE POR QUE ESTA LIDER DE UNA MAFIA CORRUPTA NO SE VA A QUEDAR CON LOS BRAZOS CRUZADOS YA SABEMOS QUE QUIERE JOD….AL PERU Y LO PRIMERO VA A EMPEZAR A SUS ANTIGUAS ANDANZAS PROPIAS DE UNA LIDER MAFIOSA A OBSTACULIZAR LAS INVESTIGACIONES EN CONTRA DE ELLA Y LA DE SU PARTIDO DE RATAS CORRUPTAS

  4. Gregorio Agustín Vásquez Torres says:

    La disolucion del congreso no puede servir como argumento para votar a favor de liberar a Keiko PORQUE es una variable que NO se encuentra en el expediente y es un hecho POSTERIOR a todo lo actuado.

  5. Roberto romero Montoya says:

    Tiene que regresar a la cárcel la señora K.

  6. Patricia Parra says:

    La manipulación del corrupto Blume quizo sacar anteriormente a la Dr Ledesma luego anuncia su presidencia de este tribuno después de su VICIOSA sentencia y difícil de solucionar con el cambio de presidencia

    Estamos hartos de Coya “llorando” en cuarto Poder, RPP , NP y La República ;cuando H Coya hizo del canal 7 un canal fujimorista filmando la salida de keiko y “la huelga de hambre” y todo el circo especialmente en tiempo de elecciones.

    En conclusión la jefa de la mafia capturó el TC, colegio de abogados (Villa Stein potencial amenaza a nuestros fiscales), poder legislativo, poder judicial (CNN, Hinostroza, Chavarry), Empresarial (Confiep, Creditcorp) casi todas las instituciones.

  7. Henry Charles says:

    Esta dolido este comunista Tribuno de Ratine quiso ser presidente del Tc y sus Camaradas Ramos y ledezma lo traicionaron superalo ya comunista nadie anulo tu fallo cuando dejastes libre a tus patrones ratine y cosito humala

  8. Paola Cerv says:

    Este falso Doctor esta ardido porque no salio Presidente del TC, que falta de etica de despotricar de los otros Magistrados cuando él marco su posición antes siquiera de leer el caso Keiko Fujimori y salio a todos los Medios de Comunicación.

  9. Mari Flor says:

    Finalmente el Fujimorista tribuno Ferrero podría quedar como presidente del TC , buena jugada de Blume , parece que la tentación de la Sra Ledesma por ser presidenta aunq sea unos meses fue más fuerte , la batuta quedará otra vez en manos de un Fujimorista igual que Blume

  10. Marlon Moreno says:

    Hay una coordinacion con la prensa mermelera, pars hacer hora con keiko, para dar en medio de esta cortina de humo, los 524 millones para Odebrecht que selo esta regalando..en agradecimientk por haber echado a sus rivales.

  11. Esteban Chagray says:

    Este flaco se quiere parecer a jaime baily, pero lo unico que se parece es que es chicolate porque le falta el chico,despues baily es otra cosa lejossssss.

  12. Segundo Torres fernandez says:

    Nuestro fiscales y juezes deben ya pedir presión preventiva para está corrupta y mafiosa Keiko Fujimori.por que ya debe tener planeado su salida del nuestro PERU.

  13. peruchi ahu says:

    En este programa todos los días le da con palo a sra keiko todos los días pero no habla nada de es es canciller villanueva la corrupción que tiene con odebrech y directamente y lo han encontrado arreglando al fiscal y otros dos más eso tiene que hablar y un montón de noticias de corrupción que hay que investigar pero el periodista está cubriendo al presidente vizcarra otra noticia por que no habla del señor petrozi de despedir al presidente del canal de televisión por que no habla de grama montero .se nota que es admirador de domingo perez cuando lo entrevista se emociona

  14. ZAIRA ABAD says:

    Así son los odiadores 🤮🤮🤮

  15. Gerardo Gargurevich says:

    Ya ledesma es presodente
    Estos jueces prebadicadores la politica lesgana y ya ojitos sigue adelantando opinion dice la sr Fujimory ya la suprema dicto
    En cambio mi amigos nacionalistas la suprema no se pronuncio

  16. Flor Ramirez says:

    Por k no le preguntas a ojito si los humalas debieron cumplir su sentencia k asco con este magistrado

  17. Flor Ramirez says:

    Y k asco contigo tetudo mermelero

  18. Flor Ramirez says:

    Mi pregunta es por k no se indigna por los humalas

  19. Eduardo Zapata says:

    por que sr Chincha insiste en ser un imbecil tratando de sacar declaraciones que comprometan la legalidad de los fallos ,sentencia.?????

  20. Francisco Ruesta says:

    Comunista rojete caviar OJITOS, QUIEN TE CREES , POBRE DESCARADO!!!SE QUIERE ATORNILLAR , LARGUESE CORRUPTO NO ESTABA EN LAS AGENDAS DE LA CHORASA NADINE!!! COMO LE DAN PANTALLA A 3STE CINICO ,

  21. Francisco Ruesta says:

    Chinchoso!! DA NAUSEA ESTE PERIODISTA MERMELADA PURA!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *