-13- 46. On January 11, 1999, the court prosecutor submitted a brief in which he indicated that the Special Commission does not have the authority to guarantee the right to a hearing. He also indicated that according to the Constitution "government officials have no more powers than those expressly given by law and not those that they arbitrarily attribute to themselves.”70 47. On May 4, 1999, the majority of the Constitutional Division declared “there are no grounds” for the appeal.71 The Constitutional Division analyzed whether the Legislative Assembly had the power to dismiss a judge of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and whether Mr. Colindres Schonenberg had been prosecuted twice for the same reason.72 The Chamber pointed out that the judge's period in office is indisputably related to the right to stability in the position [...] and, in this regard, it should be clarified that [such right] in no way implies [a] fixed tenure within the term, since such right directly protects against arbitrary, capricious dismissals or those made in violation of the Constitution or by law, but this does not prevent a public servant from being removed from their position […] when such person fails to comply with their duties or when they incur in grounds for dismissal, and it must be carried out strictly in observance of the Constitution and the principle of legality.73 48. The Constitutional Division reiterated that "there are no express reasons for dismissal or removal before the end of the period or term for which the [TSE] judges were elected.”74 However, he noted that: [T]he requirements that the Constitution and the law sets out for holding the position of [TSE] judge must be met not only at the time of their election by the Legislative Assembly, but must also be maintained during the entire term of office for which they were elected. And precisely to guarantee the independent action of the electoral entity, it is essential that the judge remain in a position such that pressures and/or influences are reduced or rendered futile; such position is only achieved by maintaining the appointment requirements up to date. [H]ere, it is not a question that the judge, once elected, must retain the political trust of the political party that proposed their name or of the parliamentary groups that intervened in his or her election, but rather that said person must position him or herself with independence and, therefore, must meet the requirements and not incur in the disqualifications established for the position.75 49. He also indicated that "it can be perfectly interpreted" that the Legislative Assembly, as the competent authority to appoint the TSE judges, "also has the authority to decide on their dismissal.”76 50. One judge issued a dissenting vote, considering that “[t]he Assembly has no powers beyond those set out in the Constitution itself,” which does not include the power to dismiss members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. He added that, in the absence of regulation, the application of article 236 of the Constitution – which addresses the liability of public officials for committing crimes – was the only way to remove a member of the TSE from office.77 Cf. Brief presented by the court prosecutor on January 11, 1999 (evidence file, folio 513). Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Division of May 4, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1579). 72 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Division of May 4, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1552). 73 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Division of May 4, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1559). 74 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Division of May 4, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1560). 75 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Division of May 4, 1999 (evidence file, folios 1560 and 1561). 76 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Division of May 4, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1565). 77 Cf. Vote against the Judgment of the Constitutional Division of May 4, 1999, of Dr. Jose Enrique Argumedo (evidence file, folio 1580). 70 71