Tribuna Popular – On Wednesday, September 25, former presidential candidate Enrique Márquez, together with the Popular Democratic Front – of which the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) is a member – filed before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) an appeal for a constitutional review to demand the annulment of the ruling that validates the results presented by the National Electoral Council (CNE) on July 28.

Different political actors joined the initiative: besides the PCV, the parties Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), Union and Progress, and Centered on the People accompanied this request against Ruling No. 31 issued by the TSJ’s Electoral Chamber.

“This is a civic, constitutional initiative, attached to the institutional route in Venezuela”, said Marquez outside the highest court of the country.

The former candidate declared that the nullity of Ruling No. 31 is a prerequisite so that “from there on, Venezuelans may find themselves again on the road to rescue democracy and the value of voting”.

Lawyer María Alejandra Díaz Marín of the Popular Democratic Front asserted that the ruling of the Electoral Chamber “violates guarantees and principles established in the Constitution”.

“The only way to achieve peace in Venezuela and that the Government to be sworn in on January 10, 2025, be born with legitimacy of origin, is only possible having the absolute certainty of who the winner is. Today we do not know that. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the path”, added the constitutional expert.

For his part, the Secretary General of the PCV Oscar Figuera declared that Ruling  No. 31 is not only “unlawful, violates the Constitution and violates the laws”, but that “it tries to prevent the Venezuelan people from knowing the results of the July 28 elections and, therefore, it is an action that violates popular sovereignty.”

Why Ruling No. 31 of the Electoral Chamber is unconstitutional

The lawyers in charge of this request for constitutional review have pointed out that in the world of law, the figure of an “electoral contentious recourse” to “certify electoral results” does not exist. However, the Electoral Chamber declared an appeal of these characteristics  “to be within its authority” and ruled  “based on an alleged expert opinion” that would have verified “in an unrestricted and unequivocal manner” the electoral results presented by the CNE declaring Nicolás Maduro as the winner.

A second element identified by the jurists is that in this process there was not even a legal controversy since the promoter of this action, President Nicolás Maduro, “did not express a disagreement, nor did he formulate a complaint against any subject that would harm his particular legal situation as a candidate”.

“In the contentious electoral recourse there must be an aggrieved party and for there to be a controversy there must be an aggrieved party”, said the lawyers responsible for the request for constitutional review.

The document points out that since there is no legal controversy and there is no electoral litigation that the Electoral Chamber, “in the exercise of its powers should resolve”, for the petitioners, “the Electoral Chamber incurred in a constitutional procedural fraud”.

By proceeding in this manner and fraudulently certifying results that to this day are not public, the decision of the Electoral Chamber violates the republican form consecrated in the Constitution, which expressly establishes that sovereignty resides intransferably in the people.

The Electoral Chamber “revoked and left without any effect whatsoever the sovereign, original, constituent, perpetual, absolute and irrevocable power of the Venezuelan people”, stated the lawyers in the brief.

The adherents to the appeal for review hope that the ruling be declared unconstitutional and therefore annulled. But also, that the CNE be ordered to comply with its duties and publish the results disaggregated by voting table and under the corresponding auditing processes.