Source: http://comunaroja1.blogspot.com/2016/04/sentencia-del-tsj-enmienda.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-24 11:23:14+00:00

Document:
COMUNA ROJA: Sentencia del TSJ: Enmienda constitucional sobre el periodo presidencial no sería de aplicación inmediata. Supreme Court ruling : Constitutional amendment on presidential term would not be of immediate application
Sentencia del TSJ: Enmienda constitucional sobre el periodo presidencial no sería de aplicación inmediata. Supreme Court ruling : Constitutional amendment on presidential term would not be of immediate application
25-05-16.-La Sala Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, conociendo demanda de interpretación, determinó que cualquier enmienda que pretenda efectuarse a la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, no puede tener efectos retroactivos en el tiempo o ser de aplicación inmediata; en tanto, admitir tal supuesto constituiría un quebrantamiento al ejercicio de la soberanía previsto en el artículo 5 de la Carta Magna, ya que se estaría desconociendo la voluntad del pueblo.
Señaló la sentencia, ponencia del magistrado Arcadio Delgado Rosales, que el constituyente estableció en el artículo 24 lo que la doctrina llama la "irretroactividad absoluta", por ello la pretensión de enmendar la constitución con la finalidad de reducir el mandato del presidente de la República constituiría una retroactividad inconstitucional.
El fallo indicó que, tratar de utilizar la figura de la enmienda constitucional con el fin de acortar de manera inmediata el ejercicio de un cargo de elección popular, como el del Presidente de la República, constituye un fraude a la Constitución, la cual prevé otros mecanismos de expresión de la voluntad popular.
El 15 de marzo de 2016, el abogado JOHNNY LEONIDAS JIMÉNEZ MENDOZA, titular de la cédula de identidad número V- 8.517.341, e inscrito en el Instituto de Previsión Social del Abogado bajo el número 79.626, actuando en nombre propio, y asistiendo a la ciudadana ELSY LEONARDA SILVA GRIMÁN, titular de la cédula de identidad N° V- 10.861.474, demandaron la interpretación del artículo 340 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela.
El 17 de marzo de 2016, se dio cuenta en Sala y se designó Ponente al Magistrado Arcadio Delgado Rosales, quien con tal carácter suscribe el presente fallo.
Los ciudadanos Johnny Leonidas Jiménez Mendoza y Elsy Leonarda Silva Grimán, demandaron la interpretación del artículo 340 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, con base en las siguientes consideraciones:
Que (…) en ese mismo grupo político de la MUD (sic), ahora con una representación mayoritaria de Diputados y Diputadas en la Asamblea Nacional, vienen anunciando a través de todos los medio[s]comunicacionales e informativos, un[a] supuesta 'SALIDA' del Presidente Constitucional, a través del mecanismo de la ENMIENDA CONSTITUCIONAL, consagrado en el artículo 340 de (la) carta (sic) magna (sic), proponiendo un 'Recorte del Periodo Presidencial ', para de esa manera reformar el artículo 230 de la Constitución, que actualmente establece el periodo presidencial de seis (6) años, como una manera de 'revocar' el mandato del Presidente de la República (…)” (destacado del escrito).
En este orden de ideas, adujeron que “(…) un sector político agrupados (sic) en la Mesa de la Unidad, han (sic) señalado que utilizarán (sic) la Enmienda Constitucional consagrada en el artículo 340 de la C.R.B.V (sic), para revocar el mandato constitucional del presidente (sic), siendo que de ser aprobada una reforma de (la) Carta (sic) Constitucional (sic), con el único fin de 'salir' del Presidente Constitucional (sic) de la República, podríamos estar en presencia de un solapamiento de la institución popular y soberana del Referéndum Revocatorio, consagrado en el artículo 72 (…)”.
Que, a su entender, “(…) estas acciones con apariencia de legalidad podrían configurar un fraude constitucional que lesiona los derechos políticos de todos los electores y electoras, quienes en el ejercicio de la soberanía popular eligieron al Ciudadano (sic) Nicolás Maduro Moros como Presidente de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, por lo que podríamos estar en presencia del rompimiento del hilo constitucional, violando parcialmente (la) carta (sic) magna (sic) (…)”.
Expresaron que su legitimación para interponer la presente demanda radica “(…) en el interés legitimo (sic) de defender (sus) derechos políticos y electorales como depositarios de (su) voluntad soberana, manifestada en la elección presidencial celebrada en fecha 13 de abril del año 2013, la cual (sienten) amenazada con la propuesta de enmienda constitucional, que a (su) entender configura un fraude constitucional. De igual forma, (acuden) en nombre del colectivo de todo el pueblo electoral, que expresó su voluntad de elegir un nuevo Presidente para continuar el periodo constitucional 2013-2019. Así mismo, ocurr(en) en cumplimiento de (su) deber de defender (la) Constitución, tal como lo establece en su artículo 333 (…)”.
Que el artículo 340 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela establece que “(…) la enmienda tiene por objeto la adicción (sic) o modificación de uno o varios artículos de esta Constitución, sin alterar su estructura fundamental (…)” (destacado del escrito).
Ahora bien, a entender de los accionantes, surgen las siguientes dudas e interrogantes:
“(…) ¿Es constitucional que a través de la enmienda se pueda revocar el mandato del Presidente de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela? [.]
¿Al acortar el periodo Constitucional (sic) del Presidente de la República a través de la enmienda no se estaría menoscabando el ejercicio de la soberanía, consagrado en el artículo 5 de (la) carta (sic)Constitucional (sic)? [.]
¿Cual (sic) es [el] límite y alcance de la enmienda para reformar algunos artículos de la constitución (sic), que no toquen, afecten o menoscaben la estructura fundamental de (la) constitución (sic)? [.]
¿De aprobarse el recorte presidencial a través de la enmienda, no estaríamos en presencia de un fraude constitucional? [.]
¿Al utilizar el mecanismo de la enmienda constitucional, como el único fin de revocar el mandato presidencial, no se estaría solapando el artículo 72 de la carta (sic) constitucional? [.]
¿Si efectivamente, se realizara una enmienda para revocar el mandato constitucional, no estaríamos en presencia de la violación parcial de (la) carta (sic) constitucional, mediante [un] acto de apariencia legal? [.](…)” (destacado del escrito).
Con fundamento en las anteriores consideraciones, solicitaron que la presente demanda de interpretación fuese admitida, sustanciada y declarada con lugar en la sentencia definitiva.
Corresponde a esta Sala determinar su competencia para conocer de la interpretación constitucional solicitada y, al efecto, observa que en sentencia Nº 1.077 del 22 de septiembre de 2000 (caso: Servio Tulio León), esta Sala se declaró competente para conocer de las demandas de interpretación acerca del contenido y alcance de las normas y principios constitucionales, con fundamento en su cualidad de garante máxima del respeto del Texto Fundamental, así como en los poderes que expresamente le han sido atribuidos para la interpretación vinculante de sus normas, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 335 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, en concordancia con el artículo 336 eiusdem.
En el presente caso, ha sido planteada la interpretación sobre el sentido y alcance del artículo 340 del Texto Fundamental y, al respecto, se observa que a la Sala corresponde la competencia para el conocimiento de las demandas de interpretación sobre el alcance e inteligencia de normas constitucionales, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 25, cardinal 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, el cual señala:
“Artículo 25: Son competencias de la Sala Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia:
En consecuencia, conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 335 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, según el criterio jurisprudencial expuesto (caso: Servio Tulio León), y a tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 25, cardinal 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, esta Sala se declara competente para el conocimiento de la demanda de interpretación ejercida. Así se decide.
Dilucidada su competencia, con el propósito de determinar la admisibilidad de la pretensión de autos, la Sala estima conveniente reafirmar la doctrina que sobre este aspecto ha venido planteando desde que reconociera la existencia y relevancia de una especial acción mero declarativa destinada a precisar “el núcleo de los preceptos, valores o principios constitucionales, en atención a dudas razonables respecto a su sentido y alcance, originadas en una presunta antinomia u oscuridad en los términos, cuya inteligencia sea pertinente aclarar a fin de satisfacer la necesidad de seguridad jurídica, siempre y cuando tal duda nazca de actos, hechos o circunstancias cuyo procesamiento o solución no le estén atribuidos a un órgano distinto” (véanse, entre otras, sentencias nos. 1077/2000, caso: “Servio Tulio León”; 1347/2000, caso: “Ricardo Combellas” y457/2001, caso: “Francisco Encinas Verde”).
(iii) Cuando la Sala haya resuelto la duda alegada en torno al mismo caso o uno similar, persistiendo en ella el ánimo de mantener su criterio;
En lo que respecta a la legitimación requerida para intentar esta especialísima acción para procurar la exégesis de la Carta Fundamental, el peticionante debe ostentar un interés personal, directo y actual que derive de una situación jurídica concreta, como consecuencia inmediata de la incertidumbre que se origina con respecto al contenido y alcance de un precepto constitucional que afecta francamente la esfera de intereses del requirente.
De este modo, resulta necesario que dicho interés esté vinculado a una situación jurídica actual, no virtual o hipotética, a fin de evitar que la interpretación dada por la Sala se convierta en un mero ejercicio académico, sin la finalidad práctica de integrar o armonizar la Norma Fundamental. Así pues, no es posible que cualquier particular pueda ocupar a esta Sala en resolver las dudas que, en abstracto, tuviere acerca de la interpretación de una norma constitucional (cfr. stc. Nº 1383/2008, caso: Luis Hueck Henríquez).
En el caso de autos, los accionantes adujeron que su legitimidad viene dada por su interés legítimo de defender sus derechos políticos y electorales como depositarios de su voluntad soberana, manifestada en la elección presidencial celebrada en fecha 13 de abril del año 2013 en el cual resultó electo el ciudadano Nicolás Maduro Moros como Presidente de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, la cual estiman amenazada con ocasión de la propuesta de enmienda constitucional, a la cual de forma reiterada han hecho alusión los integrantes de los distintos partidos políticos que conforman la Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD).
A este respecto, observa la Sala Constitucional que resulta un hecho público notorio comunicacional (ver, por ejemplo, http://www.panorama.com.ve/politicayeconomia/MUD-activara-3-vias-para-cesar-Gobierno-de-Maduro-20160308-0124.html; http://www.el-carabobeno. com/noticias/articulo/120761/mud-activar-tres-mecanismos-para-cambiar-al-gobierno; http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/MUD-anunciara-mecanismos-constitucionales-Maduro_0_806919315.html; entre otros) que la organización política denominada Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD), junto con los diputados electos a la Asamblea Nacional postulados por dicha organización, han planteado que activarán los diversos mecanismos previstos en la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela para lograr que el mandato del ciudadano Nicolás Maduro Moros como Presidente de la República, cese antes del vencimiento del periodo para el cual fue electo democráticamente (2013-2019). Entre las distintas alternativas planteadas se encuentra la figura de la Enmienda Constitucional prevista en el artículo 340 de la Carta Magna, cuyo objeto se contraería a reducir el lapso del periodo presidencial de seis (6) años a cuatro (4) años, lo que a juicio de los promoventes de dicho mecanismo constitucional -de ser aprobada a través de referéndum- sería aplicable de manera inmediata, conllevando la celebración de nuevas elecciones presidenciales en un tiempo relativamente breve. En efecto, en fecha 20 de abril de 2016, la Asamblea Nacional aprobó en primera discusión el proyecto de Enmienda Constitucional N° 2 que establece, entre otros dispositivos, la reducción del período presidencial a cuatro (4) años y el llamado a elecciones “a más tardar, el segundo domingo de diciembre de 2016”.
Lo anterior refleja que la demanda planteada en esta causa se encuentra debidamente articulada con una situación fáctica real, dirigida entonces a obtener un dictamen aclaratorio respecto de una incertidumbre específica que, de cara a la posible enmienda constitucional aludida, resulta de especial interés para cualquier miembro del electorado, no sólo como actores fundamentales del proceso comicial, sino -en general- como titulares del derecho al sufragio activo y pasivo, cuyos alcances actuales serían tocados de manera incuestionable por el propio contenido de la enmienda constitucional que plantease el Parlamento (véase stc. n°2780/2003, caso: “Elba Paredes Yéspica”).
En atención a tan especial relevancia, la Sala reconoce a los accionantes la legitimación suficiente para intentar la presente demanda de interpretación constitucional.
Adicionalmente, se aprecia que la duda planteada por la parte actora se funda en argumentos razonables que reportan novedad en cuanto a su objeto, toda vez que si bien es cierto que este órgano jurisdiccional en sentencia N° 53 del 3 de febrero de 2009 (caso: Federico Andrés Black Benítez y otros) interpretó, entre otros, el artículo 340 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, dicha interpretación se limitó a analizar la figura de la enmienda constitucional frente a la reelección sucesiva de los cargos de elección popular y la posible afectación del principio fundamental de alternatividad previsto en el artículo 6 del texto constitucional. El caso de autos, por su parte, representa un planteamiento original y/o novedoso, en el cual la institución de la enmienda constitucional pretende ser empleada como mecanismo para obtener la reducción del periodo presidencial y en caso de ser aprobada -previa celebración del referéndum respectivo-, proceder a su aplicación inmediata.
Por lo tanto, siendo ello así y visto que la finalidad de la pretensión no tiene carácter impugnativo; que no se ha acumulado otra pretensión incompatible o cuyos procedimientos se excluyan mutuamente; que no existe necesidad de estudio de un aporte documental para constatar la situación cuya aclaratoria se requiere, en cuanto ella deriva de la sola condición de electores de los accionantes y del hecho eventual de que se concrete la iniciativa por parte de la mayoría de los integrantes de las Asamblea Nacional de celebrar un referéndum para la aprobación de la enmienda constitucional propuesta; y, finalmente, que del escrito libelar se deducen claramente los términos de la pretensión y no contiene menciones ofensivas o irrespetuosas; la presente acción resulta admisible. Así de declara.
Con fundamento en los precedentes jurisprudenciales contenidos en sentencias números 226/2001, 1.684/2008, 1.547/2011 y 02/2013, considerando, por una parte, que el presente asunto es de mero derecho, en tanto no requiere la evacuación de prueba alguna al estar centrado en la obtención de un pronunciamiento interpretativo de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 7 del Código de Procedimiento Civil, aplicable por remisión supletoria del artículo 98 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, en concordancia con el artículo 145 eiusdem, la Sala estima pertinente entrar a decidir sin más trámites el presente asunto. Así se decide.
A los fines de dar respuestas a tales interrogantes, esta Sala estima pertinente analizar la figura de la enmienda constitucional, como uno de los mecanismos previstos por el Constituyente de 1999 para modificar la Carta Magna y, en tal sentido, el artículo 340 eiusdem establece que “la enmienda tiene por objeto la adición o modificación de uno o varios artículos de la Constitución, sin alterar su estructura fundamental”(subrayado nuestro).
Y es que la retroactividad es “un principio del derecho conforme al cual ninguna norma jurídica podrá extender sus efectos a situaciones acaecidas antes de su puesta en vigencia” (vid. Emilio CALVO BACA.Terminología jurídica venezolana. Caracas. Ediciones Libra, C.A. 2011; págs. 443-444).
Exp. 2016-0271
25-05-16.-The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, knowing request for interpretation, determined that any amendment that seeks to be made to the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, can not have retroactive effect in time or be applicable immediately; meanwhile, admitting that case constitute a breach to the exercise of sovereignty under Article 5 of the Constitution, and that would be ignoring the will of the people.
He said the sentence, presentation of Judge Arcadio Delgado Rosales, the constituent established in Article 24 what the doctrine called "absolute retroactivity" therefore claim to amend the constitution in order to reduce the term of President of the Republic constitute an unconstitutional retroactivity.
The Chamber, motivation, alluded to the historical treatment that has been given to the figure of the amendment regarding its entry into force in presidential periods in comparative law and said, among other examples, that the amendment XXII (which dates back to 1951) of the US Constitution did not apply to the constitutional period was in effect at that time.
The ruling indicated that try to use the figure of the constitutional amendment to shorten immediately the exercise of an elective office as the President of the Republic, it constitutes fraud to the Constitution, which provides for other mechanisms of expression of the popular will.
In those terms the High Court ruled the request for interpretation of Article 340 of the basic text, and ordered publication of the judgment in Judicial Gazette and in the Official Gazette of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
On March 15, 2016, the lawyer JOHNNY LEONIDAS JIMENEZ MENDOZA, holder of identity card number 8517341 V-, and enrolled in the Institute of Social Welfare Attorney under number 79626, acting on their own behalf, and attending ELSY citizen LEONARDA griman SILVA, holder of identity card No. V- 10,861,474, sued the interpretation of Article 340 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
On March 17, 2016, he realized in Sala and was appointed Speaker Arcadio Delgado Rosales Judge, who with such character signs this failure.
Johnny citizens and Elsy Mendoza Leonidas Leonarda Jimenez Silva griman, sued the interpretation of Article 340 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, based on the following considerations:
That (...) in the same political group in the MUD (sic), now with a majority representation of Members of Parliament in the National Assembly, being announced through all means [s] communicational and informative, the [a] alleged 'OUT' Constitutional President, through the mechanism of the constitutional amendment, enshrined in Article 340 of (the) letter (sic) magna (sic), proposing a 'cutout Presidential Period', to thereby amend Article 230 of the Constitution, which currently sets the presidential term of six (6) years, as a way to 'revoke' the mandate of the President of the Republic (...) "(Highlights of writing).
In this vein, they argued that "(...) a political sector grouped (sic) in the Table of Unity, have (sic) indicated that they will use (sic) the Constitutional Amendment enshrined in Article 340 of the CRBV (sic) to repeal the constitutional mandate of President (sic), being that if passed a reform of (the) letter (sic) constitutional (sic) with the sole purpose of 'out' of the constitutional President (sic) of the Republic, we could be in the presence of an overlap of popular and sovereign institution of the recall referendum, enshrined in Article 72 (...) ".
That, in his view, "(...) these actions under color of law could set up a constitutional fraud that damages the political rights of all electors, who in the exercise of popular sovereignty elected Citizen (sic) Nicolas Maduro Moros as President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, so we could be in the presence of the breakdown of constitutional order, partially violating (the) letter (sic) magna (sic) (...) ".
They stated that their standing to bring this application lies "(...) in the legitimate interest (sic) to defend (their) political and electoral rights as depositories of (their) sovereign will expressed in the presidential election held on April 13 2013, which (feel) threatened with the proposed constitutional amendment, that (his) understanding sets up a constitutional fraud. Similarly, (go) on behalf of the group of all the electoral people, who expressed willingness to elect a new President to continue the constitutional period 2013-2019. Also, Known to Occur (en) in compliance with (its) duty to defend (the) Constitution, as established in article 333 (...) ".
Article 340 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela states that "(...) the amendment aims addiction (sic) or modifying one or more articles of the Constitution without altering its basic structure (...)" ( Highlights of writing).
Now, to understand the plaintiffs, the following doubts and questions arise:
"(...) Is it constitutional through the amendment can revoke the mandate of President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela? [.]
¿By shortening the Constitutional period (sic) the President of the Republic through the amendment would not undermine the exercise of sovereignty, enshrined in Article 5 of (the) letter (sic) Constitutional (sic)? [.]
What (sic) is [the] limit and scope of the amendment to reform some articles of the constitution (sic), do not touch, affect or impair the fundamental structure of (the) constitution (sic)? [.]
How approved the presidential cut through the amendment, we would not be in the presence of a constitutional fraud? [.]
Does using the mechanism of the constitutional amendment as the only order to revoke the presidential mandate, would not overlap Article 72 of the letter (sic) constitutional? [.]
If indeed an amendment to repeal the constitutional mandate took place, we would not be in the presence of partial violation of (the) letter (sic) of the Constitution, by [an] act of legal appearance? [.] (...) "(Highlighted of writing).
Based on the foregoing, they requested that the application for interpretation were admitted, substantiated and declared with place in the final judgment.
It is for this Court to determine its jurisdiction of the requested constitutional interpretation and, indeed, notes that in judgment No. 1077 of September 22, 2000 (case: Servio Tulio León), this Court had jurisdiction to hear complaints of interpretation on the content and scope of the rules and constitutional principles, based on its quality of maximum guarantor of respect for the basic text as well as the powers expressly been attributed to the binding interpretation of its rules, in accordance with laid down in Article 335 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in accordance with Article 336 eiusdem.
In the present case, it has been raised interpretation on the meaning and scope of Article 340 of the Basic Text and, in this regard, it is noted that the Board corresponds competition for knowledge of the requests for interpretation on the scope and intelligence of standards constitutional, in accordance with Article 25, cardinal 17 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court, which states:
"Article 25: The powers of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court:
17. Know the request for interpretation of rules and principles that make up the constitutional system. "
Accordingly, pursuant to Article 335 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, according to the legal criteria above (case: Servio Tulio León), and pursuant to the provisions of Article 25, cardinal 17 of the Organic Law the Supreme Court, this Court has jurisdiction to knowledge of the request for interpretation exercised. So he decided.
Clarified its jurisdiction, for the purpose of determining the admissibility of the claim proceedings, the Board considers appropriate to reaffirm the doctrine that this aspect has been raised since recognized the existence and relevance of a special declaratory mere action to clarify "the core precepts, values ​​or constitutional principles, attention to reasonable doubt as to the meaning and scope, originated in an alleged contradiction or obscurity in the terms, whose intelligence is important to clarify to satisfy the need for legal certainty, provided that such doubts born of acts, facts or circumstances which processing solution or not you are assigned to a separate body "(see, among others, statements we 1077/2000 case." Servio Tulio León "; 1347/2000 case" Ricardo Combellas "y457 / 2001 case:" Francisco Encinas Verde ").
In response to its own purpose, as judicial "enlightening and completive mechanism and, in this strict sense, judicial creator; [And] in any legal case, "it has made it clear that constitute grounds for inadmissibility of the action of constitutional interpretation the following circumstances:
(I) The lack of legitimacy of the plaintiff;
(Ii) Where there is no reasonable doubt as to the content, scope and applicability of constitutional norms, with respect to the factual situation in which the plaintiff is;
(Iii) When the Chamber has resolved the alleged around the same case or a similar doubt, persisting in her encouragement to keep his judgment;
(Iv) When this pathway is used as a mechanism to advance a ruling on a case brought before another court or to replace any ordinary means through which the judge to know, to clarify the doubt raised. That is, when using your exercise, aclarativa seeks to go beyond its purpose;
(V) When the interpretative accumulate claim another differently or subjected to procedures mutually exclusive nature;
(Vi) When the necessary documents not be accompanied to verify whether the application is admissible; Y
(Vii) When the writing is unintelligible or contains offensive or disrespectful concepts.
As regards the requisite capacity to try this very special action to ensure the exegesis of the Constitution, the petitioner must hold an actual personal interest, direct and resulting from a particular legal situation as an immediate consequence of the uncertainty arises regarding the content and scope of a constitutional provision that frankly affects the sphere of interests of the applicant.
Thus, it is necessary that such interest is linked to a current legal situation, not virtual or hypothetical, in order to prevent the interpretation given by the Board to become an academic exercise, without the practical purpose of integrating or harmonizing Fundamental standard. It is therefore not possible for any individual to occupy this room to resolve any doubts that, in the abstract, he is required regarding the interpretation of a constitutional provision (cf. No. 1383/2008 stc case.. Luis Henriquez Hueck).
In this case, the plaintiffs argued that their legitimacy is given by its legitimate interest in defending their political and electoral rights as custodians of their sovereign will, expressed in the presidential election held on 13 April 2013 in which was elected citizen Nicolas Maduro as President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which they consider threatened during the proposed constitutional amendment, which repeatedly have hinted members of the various political parties that make up the Bureau of the Democratic unity (MUD).
In this regard, the Constitutional Court observes that it is a public fact notorious communicational (see, for example, http://www.panorama.com.ve/politicayeconomia/MUD-activara-3-vias-para-cesar-Gobierno-de-Maduro-20160308-0124.html; . Http: //www.el-carabobeno com / news / article / 120761 / mud-turn-tres-mechanisms-to-change-the-government; http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/MUD-anunciara-mecanismos-constitucionales-Maduro_0_806919315.html; among others) that the political organization called Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), along with elected to the National Assembly nominated by that organization members, have argued that activate the various mechanisms provided for in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to achieve that the mandate of citizen Nicolas Maduro as President of the Republic, cease before the expiration of the period for which it was democratically elected (2013-2019). Among the various alternatives proposed is the figure of the Constitutional Amendment under Article 340 of the Constitution, the purpose of which would shrink to reduce the length of the presidential term of six (6) years to four (4) years, which judgment of the proponents of the constitutional mechanism -if approved through referendum would apply immediately, leading to the holding of new presidential elections within a relatively short time. Indeed, as of April 20, 2016, the National Assembly approved in first reading the draft Constitutional Amendment No. 2 which states, among other devices, reducing the presidential term to four (4) years and call for elections " not later than the second Sunday of December 2016 ".
This reflects that the demand raised in this case is properly articulated with a real factual situation, then directed to obtain an explanatory opinion on a specific uncertainty, facing the possible constitutional amendment alluded to, it is of special interest for any member the electorate, not only as key players in the electoral process, but, in general, as holders of the right to vote and stand, whose current scope would unquestionably touched by the content of the constitutional amendment that would raise the Parliament itself (see stc . n ° 2780/2003 case: "Elba yespica Walls").
In view of special relevance, the Board recognizes the plaintiffs sufficient standing to try this application for constitutional interpretation.
Additionally, it is noted that the question raised by the plaintiff is founded on reasonable grounds that report novelty in terms of their purpose, since if it is true that that court in its judgment No. 53 of February 3, 2009 (case Federico Andres Black Benitez and others) played, among others, Article 340 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, that interpretation was limited to analyzing the figure of the constitutional amendment against successive reelection of elected office and the possible involvement alternativity fundamental principle laid down in Article 6 of the Constitution. The case, meanwhile, represents an original and / or innovative approach, in which the institution of the constitutional amendment intended to be used as a mechanism for reducing the presidential term and if approved -after referendum respectivo-, proceed to immediate application.
Therefore, being so and given that the purpose of the claim has not impugning character; which no other claim has accumulated incompatible or mutually exclusive whose procedures; there is no need to study a documentary contribution to ascertain the situation which clarification is required, as it derives from the mere condition of electors of the plaintiffs and the eventual fact that the initiative by the majority of the members is realized of the National Assembly to hold a referendum to approve the proposed constitutional amendment; and finally, that the written libelar are clear from the terms of the claim and does not contain offensive or disrespectful terms; this action is admissible. So of states.
CASE OF URGENCY
Based on the precedents statements contained in numbers 226/2001, 1,684 / 2008, 1,547 / 2011 and 02/2013, considering, firstly, that the present case is the right number, as it does not require the evacuation of evidence to be focused on obtaining an interpretative statement in accordance with Article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies for an extra reference in Article 98 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court, in accordance with Article 145 eiusdem, the Board considers appropriate to enter without further formalities decide this case. So he decided.
This request for interpretation is intended that the Constitutional Court, as the highest and final interpreter of the Basic Text, determine the scope and content of Article 340 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in relation to the proposals set forth in this demand.
In this regard, that court, in judgment No. 1309 of July 19, 2001 (case: Hermann Escarra), expressed his intention to explain the meaning of constitutional interpretation, in response to the postulate of Article 335 of the Constitution, to which he interpreted the concept and scope of its own interpretive authority, pointing to regard:
"... The constitutional interpretation turns the hermeneutical process around the rules and principles that the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela planned. This means that the protection of the Constitution and the constitutional jurisdiction that require guarantees that the interpretation of the entire legal system must be in accordance with the Constitution (see-fassungskonfome Auslegung von Gesetze). But this conformity requires the fulfillment of several conditions, some formal, as the fundamental technique (division of power, legal reserve, not ex post facto laws, generality and permanence of standards, legal sovereignty, etc.) [Ripert. Les Forces du droit créatices, Paris, LGDJ, 1955, pp. 307 ff]; and other axiológicas (social rule of law and justice, political pluralism and prominence of fundamental rights, sovereignty and national self-determination), as the dominant character of the Constitution in the interpretive process can not serve as a pretext to undermine the evident principles that Venezuelan constitutional state rests. Interpret the law according to the Constitution means, therefore, safeguard the Constitution of any deviation from principles and any departure from the political project that she embodies the will of the people.
The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela provides for two kinds of constitutional interpretation. The first is linked to the diffuse control of the constitutionality of laws and all acts performed in direct implementation of the Constitution; and second, with the concentrated control of constitutionality said. As is known, Article 334 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela requires all judges the obligation to ensure the integrity of the Constitution; and Article 335 eiusdem prescribes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to ensure the supremacy and effectiveness of constitutional rules and principles, which declares the Constitutional Chamber its supreme and ultimate interpreter, to ensure uniform interpretation and application, and to proffer their interpretations of the content or scope of such principles and rules, binding with respect to the other chambers of the Supreme Court and other courts of the Republic (binding precedent). As can be seen, the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela does not duplicate these items the interpretative jurisdiction of the Constitution, but establishes two kinds of constitutional interpretation, namely individualized interpretation given in the judgment as individual norm, and general or abstract interpretation prescribed by articles 335, which is a real jurisdatio, insofar declaring erga omnes and pro future (ex nunc), the content and scope of the constitutional principles and rules whose constitutional interpretation urged by corresponding extraordinary action. This jurisdatio is different from the function concentratedly controls the constitutionality of laws, as such monofiláctica function is, as said Kelsen, a real negative legislation that enacts the invalidity of the rules that conflict with the Constitution, apart from the general interpretation or abstract referred subconstitcionales not about rules but about the constitutional system itself. The right meaning of Article 335 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela made possible the extraordinary action of interpretation, since, otherwise, that article would be redundant in the provisions of Article 334 eiusdem, which can only lead to rules individualized, such as even the judgments of the Constitutional Court regarding protection. The difference between the two types of interpretation is patent and produce decisive legal consequences in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by this Court. These consequences relate to the different effect of jurisdictio and jurisdatio and this is because the effectiveness of individualized standard is limited to the case solved, while the general rule produced by abstract interpretation applies erga omnes and is as true jurisdatio, an interpretation cuasiauténtica and paraconstituyente, who utters the content constitutionally declared by the fundamental text ... ".
Stated above, the Board passes elucidate, as he was sued by the plaintiffs, the content of Article 340 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, specifically related to the possibility of amending the constitution to reduce the presidential term provisions Article 230 eiusdem six (6) years to four (4) years. In the view of the actors, a positive conclusion imply an impairment of the exercise of sovereignty set out in Article 5 of the basic text and at the same time, it would face a constitutional fraud because it would overlap the figure of the revocatory referendum of officials popular election provided for in Article 72 eiusdem.
In short, there are two fundamental questions object of the demand for cars: (i) the Constitution can be amended in order to shorten the constitutional term of the President of the Republic, without necessarily implying a threat to the exercise of sovereignty? and (ii) by using the mechanism of the constitutional amendment, in order to revoke the presidential mandate would not overlap Article 72 of the Constitution?
For the purpose of providing answers to such questions, this Court deems it appropriate to analyze the figure of the constitutional amendment, as one of the mechanisms provided by the Constituent Assembly of 1999 to amend the Constitution and in this regard, Article 340 eiusdem establishes that "amendment concerns the addition or modification of one or more articles of the Constitution without altering its fundamental structure" (emphasis added).
In this regard, the Preamble of the Constitution, by referring to the figure of the constitutional amendment states:
"(...) The Constitution has maintained the ranking that distinguishes between the Amendment and the Constitutional Reform, incorporating, in turn, the power to convene a National Constituent Assembly to be consistent with the idea that it is the people's legitimate depositary the original constituent power. This saves accordance with the provisions of the Constitution does sovereignty reside in the people who can exercise directly or indirectly [.]
[N] is established a number of mechanisms through which the possibilities for changing the constitutional text are feasible and accessible, to avoid divorce between the fundamental rule of the legal system and the social, political, cultural and economic. The contrast between a formal Constitution and a real Constitution creates distortions that considerably aggravate crisis of governance and legitimacy of the political system, the absence of options to overcome them.
Hence our Constitution despite having the rigidity of the written constitutions must include elements that allow the adaptation to reality. One such element is the existence of a High Court through a progressive interpretation of historical character, based on the understanding of the historical moment, allow the best possible application of the highest legislative body to reality rightful rule; as it provided for in this Constitution with the creation of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court.
But also it should include elements of flexibility on the stiffest of written constitutions that conform the provisions regarding the form and mechanisms for amending the Constitution appearance.
In this sense, the possibilities of changing the legal base of the country must be comprehensive and to be effectively in the hands of a plurality of political and social actors. A participatory democracy can not build a rigid and petrified constitutional law. Instead, it would leave open many windows that participatory processes to develop fully, avoiding the deep divorce between the norm and reality.
In this context it should be understood that the exercise of sovereignty by the people, far from affecting the process of re-founding of the Republic and to achieve the goal of democratic deepening, becomes indispensable tool of the popular role, banishing system conclaves who chose the country's destiny behind society.
Regarding the amendment procedure, the limitations set forth in the Constitution of 1961, which made difficult the achievement of effective results are overcome. In the new Constitution has envisaged a more agile and flexible manner and proceeds to formulate a definition of amendment, understood as the addition or modification of articles of the text, as long as the fundamental structure (...) is not disturbed. "
Apart from the modalities "difficulties" for changing the fundamental text (reform and amendment), by their status as "rigid" Constitution, the Magna Carta of 1999 Charter calls for the case of the amendment compliance with special requirements not only for the initiative and the "referendum", but also to the procedure for its approval, which is similar to the formation of ratification laws, as Article 341.2 constitutional guideline.
The requirements required to activate the mechanism constitutional amendment as modified, are logical for several reasons, namely:
a) discussion and sanction corresponds to the National Assembly, which is the body legislator (Article 202 of the Constitution). That is, to be followed the provisions of Articles 205 to 211 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
b) The Constitution is a legal text, although his condition supreme law and the need to ensure its supremacy under the consequences of the constitutional rigidity impose special regulations in the game for the Protection of the Constitution (Title VIII) Title. Ergo, any text that seeks to amend the framework, must also be treated as a law, although its express purpose is that, if approved, pass to integrate the constitutional order.
c) Finally, the proposed amendment should not only respect the structure of the Constitution, but also the fundamental principles of the Constitution and existing law. This limit or tax constituted power by the Constituent restriction is valid for any partial amendment (amendment or reform), because only the National Constituent Assembly can transform the state and create a new legal-constitutional order (Article 347 eiusdem), provided that no violates the principles contained in Article 350 of the basic text.
The above stated, the Constitutional Chamber warns that the President of the National Assembly and some members of the political majority of this state body, have openly declared through various media (radio, press, web portals, etc. ) its intention to "amend" the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (intention which has been partially materialized with the adoption in first reading of the draft Constitutional Amendment No. 2), in order to cut, effective immediately, the period constitutional President of the Republic.
In this regard, it appreciates this Court that, in principle, the modification of the constitutional term for the organs of public authorities is perfectly feasible through the mechanism of the amendment, provided they comply fully with the standard procedure for its approval,o he decided.
Publicado por Rafael H. Martínez G. en 9:06 p. m.

References: artículo 5
 artículo 24
 artículo 340
 artículo 340
 artículo 340
 artículo 230
 artículo 340
 artículo 72
 artículo 333
 artículo 340
 artículo 5
 artículo 72
 artículo 335
 artículo 336
 artículo 340
 artículo 25
 artículo 335
 artículo 25
 artículo 340
 artículo 340
 artículo 6
 artículo 7
 artículo 98
 artículo 145
 artículo 340