The Supreme Court met today at noon for consideration of the Budget Act An article to compel to pay Income tax All judges and ministers feel that this is yet another attack on justice by the government, which seeks to delegitimize the judiciary at a time when important judgments such as the trial against Christina Kirchner are being released. Judiciary sources said the judges were leaving with their resignations to fill the vacancies with similar judges Nation.
The situation in court is the result of communications between the four magistrates themselves and between chamberlains and federal judges across the country since last night. National Justice declared inPermanent Session” and this afternoon it will hold an extraordinary meeting of its board of directors to decide the course of action to follow.
The directors of the association issued a statement in which they declared that they were “aware of the seriousness of the harm intended in terms of subjugation” and were “in touch” with “all places with a common goal”. And they added: “Salary is neither profit nor privilege.” The statement was signed by the president of the association, Marcelo Gallo Tagle, and the general secretary, Marcelo Pelusi.
A statement from the court next week has not been ruled out, said sources in the judiciary familiar with the ruling mood on the fourth floor of the court palace where the four ministers have their offices. They pointed out that the judges were interpreting this as another “attack” on the judiciary by the government, and compared it to the reform of the pension law and the increase in the contribution of judges to 18 percent.
That law created a wave of resignations by judges who wanted to leave at the time and did not retire under the new law. Some judges, critical of the government, said the move was intended to create an exodus of judges to fill those seats with like-minded people. Indeed, in the last elections of the Judicial Council, they highlighted that Celeste was the most developed list of judges with the most ties to the government.
The “Peralty Commission’s” judicial reform, half-Senate approval of court-enlargement plan, half-Senate approval of Council’s legislation, is being read in the courts as an attack. Proposals for Reform of the Judiciary and Public Ministry.
For its part, since 2002 Commodore Pi, the Federal Judges (Ajufe) led by George Moran, guided by Federal Judge Ariel Lijo, pointed out that the plan to include the income tax payment in the budget by all judges “creates rejection and concern”. Because “it goes against the national constitution and the instruments designed to ensure judicial independence, advancing the salaries of judges across the country.”
Judicial sources gathering the temperature of the courts will include not only federal and national judges but also provincial judges across the country in the majority opinion speech to be debated on campus next Tuesday. For this reason, they added, if the reform is approved, 237,850 million pesos (0.16% of GDP) will be collected more.
This includes provincial judges and all similar regimes (provincial audit courts, public ministries, etc.); Even the municipality. There are about 15,000 provincial judges and officials and 760 national and federal judges.
Another thing that caught the attention of the courts was the vice president of the All Front who raised the need to apply this change in income tax to the judges. Marcelo CasarettoAmparo filed an appeal seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the Magistrate’s Council’s decision to enforce the old law.
Within two hours, Casaretto’s presentation secured a judicial order barring Banara’s federal judges Daniel Alonso, Cristina Kirchner and Sergio Massa from sending their representatives to the Judicial Council. The court overturned that ruling and condemned Judge Alonso, who is now being investigated by the Judicial Council and could face impeachment.
After the majority opinion that included the article imposing taxation by paying income tax to all judges, administrative law experts went to their library this morning to find out what the Financial Administration Law (No. 24,156) mentions in the second part of its Article 20. It speaks of a national budget that “shall not contain permanent provisions, shall not amend or repeal existing laws, shall not create, alter, or suppress taxes or other revenue.”
In view of these texts, it was argued that if the Act was approved, it could soon be challenged in the judiciary and declared unconstitutional in the courts.
There are currently 183 judges paying income tax who entered the judiciary after 2017, when the law was reformed. Another 778 judges did not pay income tax. Pay 25.14%. Of the judicial officers, 5,029 officers are non-paying and 125 are paying. They are 2.49%. In total, between judges and officials, taxpayers represent 5% of the judiciary.
“Introvert. Thinker. Problem solver. Evil beer specialist. Prone to fits of apathy. Social media expert. Award-winning food fanatic.”