Argentine President Javier Milei’s decision to appoint two Supreme Court justices by decree has sparked criticism for undermining judicial independence, bypassing necessary Senate approval. Human Rights Watch and various advocacy groups have raised concerns over the judges’ qualifications. The constitutionality of such appointments, especially considering international human rights obligations, has also been questioned. The Senate’s involvement is crucial in maintaining judicial integrity and upholding the rule of law.
Argentine President Javier Milei’s recent move to fill two Supreme Court vacancies via presidential decree has been criticized as a threat to judicial independence. On February 26, 2025, President Milei appointed federal judge Ariel Lijo and legal scholar Manuel García-Mansilla after struggling for months to secure a two-thirds Senate majority for their confirmation. This action reflects a controversial interpretation of the Argentine Constitution, raising serious concerns among legal experts and advocacy groups.
Human Rights Watch condemned the appointments, labeling them among the most significant assaults on Supreme Court independence since Argentina’s return to democracy. Juanita Goebertus, the Americas director at Human Rights Watch, urged the Senate to ensure that Supreme Court appointments honor constitutional processes. The Milei administration justified its actions by asserting a failure of Congress to respect its choices for candidates.
Opposition to Lijo and García-Mansilla’s nominations stemmed from various rights groups and citizens who highlighted Lijo’s questionable record as a judge and García-Mansilla’s stance on sexual and reproductive health rights. Lijo is currently under investigation by the Council of the Judiciary and has previously faced numerous disciplinary proceedings related to allegations of corruption delays.
Argentina’s constitution allows the president to fill Senate-approved vacancies that occur during congressional recesses. However, the application of this provision to Supreme Court justices is debated, with experts arguing it traditionally pertains to executive branch officials rather than judges, questioning the legitimacy of these appointments.
As a state party to international human rights treaties, Argentina is obligated to protect its judiciary’s independence. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has emphasized that judges must be appointed through a process that ensures independence from both executive and legislative pressures.
While appointments made during congressional recesses may last until the subsequent congressional period, they do not guarantee tenure security, leading to further undermining of judicial independence. Human Rights Watch stated that the Senate must be involved in the appointment process to ensure qualified candidates are selected.
In December 2015, a similar situation arose when then-President Mauricio Macri used the same constitutional provision to appoint Supreme Court justices. Despite criticism, appointments under Macri were not finalized until receiving the necessary Senate vote, highlighting procedural importance in preserving judicial integrity.
By circumventing the Senate and appointing a candidate with a contentious disciplinary history, the Milei administration risks eroding judicial independence. Goebertus asserted that these actions jeopardize the foundational principles of Argentina’s democratic institutions, which are essential for upholding the rule of law.
The controversy surrounding President Milei’s Supreme Court appointments via decree raises significant questions about judicial independence in Argentina. Critics argue this action undermines constitutional processes designed to safeguard the judiciary from executive influence. The Senate’s crucial investigative role in appointing justices is highlighted, alongside the potential consequences of compromised judicial integrity if these appointments move forward without proper oversight.
Original Source: www.miragenews.com
