Page 90 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

proclamation and undersign and deliver the credentials which, under the law, must be
33
issued to candidates declared the winners”.
34
“Power rests upon the acceptance of all law-abiding citizens”.

But ADO would not concede defeat. The fraud had been so evident that failing
to continue the struggle was in a way tantamount to vouchsafing it. All legal remedies
had to be exhausted –even though it was evident that they would be to no avail–, for
the government had given clear and abundant indications that it was bent on fraud. It
was essential for that very reason that all the details of the Great Electoral Fraud of
1984 be preserved for history and for the education of future generations.
Thus, two motions were filed to revoke Resolution 235 and render null and
35
void Barletta’s proclamation as president elect.
The first was filed on May 23 by Ramón Lima, of the Christian Democratic
Party. It underscored the fact that 44,127 votes had not been counted; those 44,127
Panamanian citizens, 6.45 per cent of the voting electorate, had cast their ballots only
to have their will ignored. The results from 239 precincts were not included in any
circuit tally sheet. Considering the apparently very close election, it was inconceivable
that a candidate be proclaimed the winner without having counted all the votes.
Moreover, the review of the San Miguelito returns had been fraudulent, as previously
mentioned. Articles 293, 296 and 299 of the Electoral Code provided the legal grounds
for this motion to revoke.

Lima recalled that paragraph three of the resolution issued by the National
Returns Board on May 11 had acknowledged the existence of “precincts (whose
results) have not been reviewed… (and that) the Tribunal must identify these precincts,
review their results and include them…”. The Tribunal, however, simply added the
fraudulent San Miguelito totals to the equally fraudulent and incomplete totals
furnished by the National Returns Board and proclaimed Barletta the winner by a

33
Abstention of Justice César Quintero, La Estrella de Panamá, May 23, 1984, page A-11. Its full
text, and that of Resolution 235 of the Electoral Tribunal, are reproduced in Exhibits 27 and 28,
respectively.
34 Bukovski, Vladimir: El viento sopla otra vez. Editorial Argos Vergara, S.A., Barcelona, 1978, page
33.
35 On May 29, 1984, Teodosio Bernal, Esq., representing the Popular Action Party (PAPO) before the
National Returns Board, filed a motion to set aside the resolution with the Supreme Court of Justice. In
this carefully thought-out document, Bernal essentially points out that “the National Returns Board
failed to comply with its obligation to locate and examine a total of 239 precinct tally sheets” and,
therefore, he requested that the resolution issued by the National Returns Board on May 11, 1984, be
declared illegal.
The Court’s answer was published on June 8, 1984, on page A-10 of La Estrella de Panamá. It flatly
rejects Bernal’s motion because, according to the Court’s reasoning, “the method chosen by the
appellant is an improper one, inasmuch as the matter being appealed from is subject to another
jurisdiction”.