Two OTP opinions and the Supreme Court’s responsibility to act according to law
Two opinions of the Attorney General’s Office of the Nation admit the legitimisation of two groups representing the ‘collective of unborn persons’, against the Constitution, national laws and Court rulings. However, they pave the way for the courts to attack the right to termination of pregnancy. Joint press release.
During the last week, Laura M. Monti, Deputy Attorney General of the Attorney General’s Office, signed two opinions in the same vein. In them, she recognises the legal standing of a group of citizens and a civil association to represent the so-called ‘unborn persons’ before the judiciary. This is an interpretation that is not supported by jurisprudence: no court has ever recognised in a final judgement the possibility of collective representation of ‘unborn persons’.
Monti issued these rulings in two cases: one led by Cristina Fiore Viñuales and the other by the organisation Portal de Belén, both initiated to question the constitutionality of the Law on the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy. In both cases, although it claims to follow the law, it departs from the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on collective representation. Also in both cases, the petitioners seek to turn what is in fact a general disagreement with the law into a ‘case’ (to be discussed in the courts).
Monti relied on art. 1 of Law 26.061 on the Integral Protection of Children to sustain standing. In this way, he distorted the meaning of the law and devised a sort of ‘popular action’ that would allow any citizen to bring an action outside of a specific case. Not only that, but it also equated ‘unborn persons’ with children and adolescents.
At the same time, in its rulings it decided not to take into account the requirements of article 116 of the National Constitution, the National Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and the Court’s decisions and jurisprudence on collective proceedings, creating a situation of legal uncertainty. To name a precedent: in the Halabi case, cited by the Attorney General herself, it is established that the existence of a case must be proven in order to grant collective standing. In neither case, neither Fiore Viñuales nor Portal de Belén, is there a ‘case’; in other words, Monti should have denied standing outright.
Why this step by the public prosecutor is serious: because it allows a group of citizens to challenge a law voted for by all political forces through a lawsuit without proving that there is a right or concrete damage affected and, in the same action, to attribute to it a collective representation that does not exist in the Argentine legal system. The democratic debate has already taken place in Congress and has drawn a line for a basic social agreement on the right to health and life, through the decriminalisation and legalisation of abortion.
The files had been awaiting an opinion for a year and a half, but they were issued two days after Dr. Rodolfo Barra was appointed National Treasury Attorney, even though he was still acting as a legal advisor in the ‘Fiore Viñuales’ case.
Dr. Barra, in his capacity as newly appointed Treasury Attorney, has a conflict of interest, according to the public ethics law, which makes him incompatible with the defence of Law 27.610. Therefore, he should be excused from intervening in the cases against the Law on the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy and in all matters related to the right to abortion. In this regard, we filed a complaint with the National Treasury Attorney’s Office and informed the Anti-Corruption Office, as it is the authority responsible for applying the public ethics law.
Since 2021, of the total number of legal actions brought against the law, 34 have been rejected by courts in different jurisdictions across the country. Only 3 reached the Court, but not to decide on their constitutionality, but to determine whether those who brought these actions have standing to do so and to represent the collective of ‘unborn persons’.
The opinions of the Attorney General’s Office are not binding for the Court, which can define the applicable legal criteria without taking into account these recommendations. Therefore, the Court now has the responsibility to reposition class actions for the purposes for which they were created, to prevent them from being conceptually forced and to avoid violating due process guarantees. This is their chance to stop the unfounded litigation against an existing and key law for millions of women, girls and persons capable of bearing children.
- Amnistía Internacional Argentina
- Equipo Latinoamericano de Justicia y Género (ELA)
- Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS)
- Fundación para el Desarrollo de Políticas Sustentables (Fundeps)
- Fundación Mujeres x Mujeres
