Dissenters convene rally on January 23 against top court's ruling
Venezuela's opposition asserts that the ruling issued on January 9 by the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Justice, "is against the Constitution and undermines the State's democratic order"
Deputy Miriam de Montilla, who read out the document, said that the ruling issued on January 9 by the Constitutional Court of Venezuela's higher court "runs counter to the Constitution and undermines the State's democratic order."
Upon this decision, "We, Venezuelans, will be ruled by officials that will hold the Executive Office until the supervened reason that prevents the president-elect from coming to the National Assembly is over," the deputy remarked. She added that the ruling has "completely disregarded the concept of temporary absence and established conditions that are not set forth in the Constitution and which authorize an indefinite absence of the president."
"The Executive Office will be in the hands of the vice-president and other officials, who have not been by any means elected the people's vote. Their term in office expires today (January 10) as well as that of the president of Venezuela," the statement read.
Montilla stressed that the deputies of the opposition Unified Democratic Panel (MUD) do respect the ruling but do not agree with it. They believe that the top court's construction of the constitution generates greater uncertainty in the country.
"We will fight for the reinstatement of the Constitution for as long as necessary," the deputy noted.
The opposition deputies seized the opportunity to convene a rally on January 23 in defense of democracy and the Constitution.
Translated by Jhean Cabrera
Pablo Jiménez Guaricuco was summarily dismissed from his Clerk III job at the Autonomous Service of Public Registries and Notaries' Offices (Saren). He read a notice published in a newspaper on November 5 informing the public that he was no longer employed to the Saren. He was sacked despite the fact that he was taking a leave of absence from work due to a work-related accident, and that he enjoyed security of employment under the parental job-immunity privilege. Most probably, the decision was influenced by his role as a union organizer. But what did he do, besides leading protests, to deserve the sack? Well, he allegedly sent off a series of tweets that definitely hurt the sensitivity of the Saren Directorate.