The Superior Court of Justice of the City, the highest judicial body in Buenos Aires, will rule in the coming days in favor of Jorge Macri, the PRO candidate for head of government, after the challenge of his candidacy by the opposition.
The complainants –Juan Pablo Chiesa, Vanina Biasi and Nito Artaza– raised before the Justice that he does not meet the requirements to be a candidate in terms of his domicile and residence.
This week the Electoral Justice already rejected, in a unanimous ruling, the questioning and stated that the candidacy complied with the Buenos Aires Constitution.
Jorge Macri was born in Tandil – like his cousin the former president – but spent three quarters of his life in the City with his family. As they explain in his environment, he always had an address in the Federal Capital, even when he was mayor of Vicente López. In the four years that María Eugenia Vidal governed the Province, he worked in the central building of Banco Provincia, where he had his office on the eighth floor of San Martín street. “I have been a Buenos Aires government minister for more than a year and a half, I resigned from the municipality and lived 41 years in this city,” she explained this week.
In this context, the complainants appealed and the issue will be dealt with by the TSJ. In the previous counts in the PRO they affirm that the ruling in favor of Jorge Macri could be, either unanimous, or four to one.
With that opinion, the only thing left to do is wait if the Supreme Court of Justice takes up the case, as it did in Tucumán with Juan Manzur or in San Juan with Sergio Uñac. The plaintiffs have already appealed to the Court, who asked the Attorney General Eduardo Casal for his opinion, who yesterday stated that the debate on whether or not the applicant meets the requirements must first be analyzed by the Buenos Aires Justice. It is still unknown what position the supreme will have. In any case, both in the Manzur case and the Uñac case, the Highest Court raised the need for “alternation” and the chance to go for a re-re-reelection. There is no history of failures due to a matter of address. It could be the first if it expands. The other way, as Casal proposed, is to leave it in the hands of the City Justice.