Superior Electoral Court rejects lawsuit from the Dominican Humanist Party
The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) issued a ruling rejecting the electoral summary proceeding of extreme urgency filed by the Dominican Humanist Party (PHD). The legal action had been brought by the president of said political organization, Ramón Emilio Goris Taveras.
The plenary of the court, composed of magistrates Ygnacio Pascual Camacho Hidalgo, Pedro Pablo Yermenos Forastieri, Fernando Fernández Cruz, Rafaelina Peralta Arias, and Lenis Rosángela García Guzmán, based its decision on the failure to meet the legal requirements demanded for this type of appeal.
Reasons for the failure
As established by the magistrates, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a real urgency, nor an imminent or irreparable harm that would justify the immediate intervention of the jurisdictional body. Likewise, the court determined that the need to cease a manifestly illicit disturbance was not established, in accordance with the provisions of Article 166 of the Electoral Contentious Procedures Regulations.
The court concluded that the necessary evidence was not presented to prove the extreme urgency requested by the plaintiff to proceed with the required precautionary measures.
Legal action details
The lawsuit, filed on September 11, was directed against Julián Burgos Bonilla, the national organization secretary of the PHD. The main objective of the petition was to obtain a provisional measure that would force Burgos Bonilla to immediately join the organizational tasks of the party’s VII Ordinary National Convention, scheduled for Sunday, September 20.
- The lawsuit was admitted in terms of form for complying with the current legal provisions.
- The court dismissed the plea of inadmissibility presented by the defense regarding the provisional nature of the action, acknowledging that the case was limited to a specific period prior to the party event.
- Despite the formal admission, the merits of the request were denied as the criteria of extreme urgency necessary for a court order of this nature were not met.
