Carlos Zannini has still not responded and the Court could not rule until Tuesday

Despite Tuesday’s notification asking him to give his response, Treasury Prosecutor Carlos Zannini has yet to send arguments in support of the decision to suspend face-to-face classes in the Buenos Aires metropolitan area (AMBA) to Supreme Court of Justice.), which the government of Buenos Aires opposed. Zannini’s deadline expires on Tuesday, from the moment when – whether the prosecutor has responded or not – the highest court can rule on the legality of the DNU which opened the discussion on the face-to-face courts.

After the opinion of the Attorney General of the Nation, who determined that the court is competent to deal with the city government’s claim, the highest court agreed to deal with the protection which puts autonomy at the center of the claim. to determine on the education in the region of Buenos Aires, knowing that it is a faculty granted by the Constitution and in recognition of the federal capital as a jurisdiction of provincial rank.

Four of the five ministers of the court accepted jurisdiction and concluded that before settling the dispute between the national state and the city, “it will be supported by the rules of the summary procedure, for a period of five days”.

This term is the one that has governed since Tuesday so that the Treasury prosecutor Carlos Zannini has the rest of this week to oppose his arguments to the claim of his counterpart in Buenos Aires. Gabriel Astarloa, who opposed the closure of the city’s schools as an “unconstitutional”, “arbitrary” and “unreasonable” decision.

The protection was based on three axes: the alleged violation of city autonomy, – “the decision adopted by the national state implies virtual federal intervention”; the violation of the principle of reasonableness – “the suspension of face-to-face lessons is not justified in the empirical data” – and the violation of the principle of federal supremacy, according to which “the supremacy of the national Constitution is declared above all the Argentine legal order”.

Zannini has until Tuesday morning to reject the statements of the government of Buenos Aires on the unconstitutional presentation of the DNU, more precisely what is supported in article 2, which suspends the face-to-face courses at the AMBA for fifteen days for an epidemiological reason.

But since the city secured a court ruling in the Buenos Aires administrative dispute and classrooms were open all week, the national government’s parsimony in response has been surprised. Let us not forget that the Court cannot take the case until it has received this answer or the deadline for presentation has expired. The state “has decided to run out of time,” said government sources in Buenos Aires.

Once the Treasury attorney has formulated his arguments, the terms start to run, all ever closer to the expiration of the presidential decree. In such a case, the Court must assess the response of the national state, then, according to the procedure, it should again seek the opinion of the Attorney General of the Nation in charge of Eduardo Casal, who should issue an opinion – no, it is binding – before issuing a final resolution.

If the Court renders a decision when it is close to the expiration of the DNU “It will apply forward, and this is not minor”, city sources said.

On the other hand, the discussion persists on the judge’s decision in the federal administrative litigation. Esteban Furnari, who ordered the city of Buenos Aires on Tuesday evening to suspend face-to-face classes in schools in Buenos Aires. After this decision, Horacio Rodríguez Larreta brought together the city’s lawyers and the firm and ultimately decided that the schools would remain open.

In this decision, the magistrate gave way to a proposal by Carlos Zannini, who had requested the annulment of the judgment of the Buenos Aires justice which ordered the city to guarantee face-to-face courses.

Furnari considered that “in the presence of an invalid jurisdictional act, a magistrate of federal jurisdiction cannot remain indifferent, since it is precisely of the essence of the same – in conjunction with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation as the maximum responsible for this mission, that of ensuring the supremacy of the national Constitution, one of the most striking manifestations of which is the vertical organization of power so as to guarantee the unity of the Nation, by making federal authorities and acts prevail in all controversial or controversial cases. allow different interpretations. “

The judge conceded that the Court must have the final say in this dispute, thereby in effect recognizing the autonomy of the City.