Page 77 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

party, Justice Yolanda Pulice de Rodríguez, in a ruling less than one page long, denied
the request on the grounds that the power of attorney conferred upon Arosemena
Guardia had not been granted in person by the constituent, i.e., the PDC chairman, Dr.
Ricardo Arias Calderón. Justice Rolando Murgas Torraza voted in favor of this historic
and most unusual ruling, putting his signature to it. Justice César Quintero, however,
voted against the majority.

Let us now see Quintero’s opinion in connection with the fraud at Circuit 4-4
and his minority vote. The following paragraph is taken from his interview published
in La Vanguardia of Barcelona and previously quoted here:

“He states that, in his opinion, the most serious complaint and the one
that seems to be best documented has to do with the so-called ‘Circuit
4-4’ an Indian area to the west of Chiriquí. ‘The irregularities charged
in this area involved a 3,600-vote majority in favor of the
government, a false majority which, were it to disappear, would

throw the election to the opposition candidate. That is why I voted
against the majority in the Tribunal. I said that even if there were
technical errors in the complaint, the Tribunal ought to investigate
the complaint since the votes in question are decisive for

proclaiming either candidate as the winner”. (Our bolding).

This frank pronouncement notwithstanding, Quintero subsequently nullified
any symbolic value his nay vote might have had by signing the ruling that arbitrarily
dismissed the challenge filed by the PDC.

What would have happened if Quintero had refused to sign the ruling and had
resigned as presiding justice of the Electoral Court (the logical ultimate consequence
of his opposing vote?) Murgas and Pulice, the pro-government majority, would still
have approved the ruling. But Quintero would not have compromised either his vote or
his name.

On the other hand, who is to say how the people would have reacted to
Quintero’s resignation? Perhaps the General Staff would have been forced to stage a
coup, thus baring the true nature of the regime for all to see. At any rate, there can be
no doubt that while Quintero’s nay vote was correct, it was also ineffective and, by not
being carried to its ultimate and logical conclusion, it undoubtedly aided the regime.

As previously stated, the argument adduced by the Electoral Tribunal for
dismissing this challenge was that “the power of attorney was not personally filed by
its constituent, as required by the provisions of Article 421 of the Judicial Code”. At
first sight, and considering the importance of the challenge, this seems to be a ludicrous
and, in addition, extremely inflexible argument. But “the law is the law”, we are told,