74. In the instant case, the parties agree that one of the functions delegated to the Judicial Commission by the Supreme Court of Justice is to appoint provisional and temporary judges, and to remove them when there are no disciplinary grounds. Specifically, the SPA of the SCJ has indicated that the “Judicial Commission appoints [the judges], by delegation from the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice, owing to the need to fill judicial posts while the above-mentioned process of the restructuring and reorganization of the Judiciary is completed.”89 The SCJ considered that these powers did not negate the job stability that administrators of justice should have, because: The Judicial Commission is authorized to annul the appointment of judges who have entered the Judiciary without taking the respective competitive examination, avoiding the prior administrative procedure, since their stability would be subject to their having sat the competitive examination and obtained a permanent post.”90 75. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the domestic level, there were differences of opinion between the Political and Administrative Chamber and the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice with regard to the Judicial Commission’s competence to annul appointments of judges based on “comments” submitted to this Commission. Initially, the Political and Administrative Chamber considered that an administrative decision, based on “comments submitted to the Commission,” to “annul” the appointment of a provisional judge “means that it gave that decision a connotation that can only be understood as a punishment, implying that an error had been committed.”91 Thus, according to the said Chamber, “the competence to order [the removal] corresponded to the Restructuring and Operation Commission […], and not to the Judicial Commission.”92 Nevertheless, the Chamber considered that “this does not entail a generalization” from which it could be “inferred that, in all cases in which the Judicial Commission considered that judges must be removed […], it has to open an administrative procedure,” because the Commission “retains the power to annul the appointments it makes, in keeping with the powers conferred by the Plenum, exercising a necessarily prompt process.”93 Hence, the Chamber concluded that, “should the Judicial Commission presume that a longserving judicial official has committed an error, the appropriate step […] is to forward the matter to the Restructuring and Operation Commission […] so that […] it may examine the matter, respecting [the official’s] constitutional rights.”94 76. This opinion of the Political and Administrative Chamber was subsequently annulled by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal, which considered that “the decisions annulling the appointment of provisional judges named by the Judicial Commission are not disciplinary decisions, but rather decisions taken in exercise of discretionary powers, [so that] a decision of this nature does not entail 89 Judgment No. 2414 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, supra note 79, folio 5783. 90 Judgment No. 01989 of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 2, 2006. Cited in: Judgment No. 2414 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, supra note 79, folio 5768 91 Judgment of the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 7, 2007. Cited in: Judgment No. 2414 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, supra note 79, folio 5771. 92 Judgment of the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 7, 2007. Cited in: Judgment No. 2414 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, supra note 79, folio 5772. 93 Judgment of the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 7, 2007. Cited in: Judgment No. 2414 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, supra note 79, folio 5773. 94 Judgment of the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 7, 2007. Cited in: Judgment No. 2414 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, supra note 79, folios 5773 and 5774. 24