Page 78 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

and there is no retort to that. It so happens, however, that the law governing the filing
of powers of attorney is not as absolute and well defined as the justices construed it on
this occasion. In a previous case involving those who took over the leadership of the
Liberal Party and steered it towards the pro-government alliance, these same justices
did not ask that powers of attorney be filed in person. This proves again the Tribunal’s
evident bias towards Barletta. “We are sure that, had the proper procedural
requirements been observed, the Tribunal would have alleged other reasons to dismiss
the petition”. (La Prensa, Editorial, May 9, 1984).

The Electoral Code includes no provision on the filing of powers of attorney.
It is true, nevertheless, that the Judicial Code requires the constituent to appear before
the court at the time of filing the action in question. In practice, however, this
requirement is enforced with considerable flexibility. For instance, if the attorney filing
the power of attorney is known to the court’s secretary and is a person of good
reputation, powers of attorney are admitted in their constituent’s absence. The most
that could happen is that the secretary would ask to see the constituent’s identity card
so as to verify his signature.

The modus operandi adopted by the Electoral Tribunal was precisely the
same. On more than one occasion, attorneys for the PDC and for all other parties, had
filed legal actions without their constituents being present. In case of question,
Arosemena produced Arias Calderon identity card and asked Tomlinson, the Tribunal
secretary if everything was in order. Tomlinson answered affirmatively and proceeded
to admit and process the challenge. Seven days went by and “finally they invoked a
purely technical issue of statutory law and dismissed the complaint in a ruling not quite
28
one page long” .
In addition, there are several Electoral Code articles (346, 348, 397) capturing
the spirit of the body of law, “formulated to administer ELECTORAL JUSTICE and
not to create a world of technicalities and formalities, typical of the ritual followed in
29
regular courts, which modern legislation deems obsolete…” .
And just in case all the foregoing were not enough, Arosemena, in his motion
to reconsider, stated:

28 Rubén Arosemena Guardia, Motion to reconsider filed with the Electoral Tribunal of Panama on
May 17, 1984. This historic document, together with the “Motion to declare null and void the elections
held on May 6, 1984, in Circuit 4-4”, and the Electoral Tribunal’s responses there to are to be found in
exhibit 18.
29 Ibid.