Suspicion and investigative commissions

All research requires certain assumptions that are absent from those that suit politicians who lack any of the qualifications necessary to perform the function of investigating facts and presenting conclusions about their emergence and the possible responsibilities of their authors. Even when the discipline of voting and the dependence of the apparatuses of each entity impose their power without considering any considerations other than electoral interest, political debate lacks the spirit of clarification at its core.

The elements of the aforementioned commissions are not independent, but it is a qualification that the judge should have, who are foreign to the dispute and who do not have direct or indirect interest in the event under investigation. Rather, politicians are subject to previously published positions that never leave their initials on any commission. It’s about defending oneself and blaming the enemy, and it refers to the actions of investigators who, with or without evidence, are simply trying to justify their previous decisions.

Nor do parliamentarians or legislators have the basic or basic education to learn the facts they are investigating. They are orphans of certain knowledge, legal or otherwise. Unknowingly solving complex issues warns that the decisions made do not contain rigorous content. It is true that its function is nothing but the designation of this cryptic responsibility, the so-called political responsibility, which is as diffuse as its boundaries are vague, and which accepts everything, rejects all logic.

Less logically, these commissions have the capacity to confirm a contrasting, legal, administrative or criminal liability, apart from the ethical, political responsibility mentioned above, the approval of the latter is expressly prohibited by law. In this way, their impressions, reduced to testifying about doubts, prejudices, or moral charges, about overt accusations that have no basis other than conjecture, are as useless as they are useless.

This municipal investigation commission was unable to provide any illuminating data on a subject that was presented as a general suspicion based on appearance, that appearance was insufficient in the claim of legal effect, and was completely ineffective to form a basis for the annulment of the administrative act. In addition, it is seen that there are the foundations of internal movements that are never denied and never missing in public institutions. A view is sought without presenting any objective data, and the highest authorities are asked to explain even those that are not specified in the objective elements.

The appropriate remedy is judicial remedy in contentious-administrative proceedings, if irregularities that can prove the invalidity of the review procedure are confirmed, or criminal remedy if there are signs of a crime that may form the basis for this legal effect. And as part of the process, everything needs to be proven, suspicion or rumor is not enough.

They know. And they know that it is not possible to reach a solution based on doubts without factual support, ethical systems and attributions of responsibility. For this reason, they prefer to establish a parliament in the form of an investigative commission that supports everything, knowing that the possible cancellation effect of the accreditation of the assumptions they put forward can only be achieved there, rather than going where it should be. without showing the necessary foresight and risking the image of the municipal institution, they have no basis other than to believe in a conspiracy that they themselves have not disclosed, by displaying their assumptions and attributing irregularities to the left and right.

The facts, if true, would be very serious. However, this seriousness will require that the legally established mechanisms for this purpose, namely the processes resolved by an independent Judicial Power, decide on the reality of what is happening, not the mere appearance or reality. perhaps related anger of some. For this, obviously, one must go from easy word-of-mouth to responsible work, arousing suspicion, seeking evidence, from indiscriminate lack of ethics to administrative irregularities or crimes. And from all this nothing has been said, nothing has been confirmed.

Do the right thing, study, and stop “judging” for a day. It’s not their function, it’s to look for evidence, if any, thus deciding who has that competence. If there are reasons, present them solidly, not with useless bullies who only serve their particular purpose.