2. Rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal No. 0004-2003-TC of April 29, 2003, and No. 025-2003-TC of February 17, 2004 74. The impeachment of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal was initiated by some members of Congress owing to their disagreement with two decision adopted by that court. One of them related to a “fourteenth salary” and the other to a system for assigning electoral seats, known as the “D’Hondt method.” 75. The decision on the unconstitutionality of the “fourteenth salary” was adopted by Ruling No. 0004-2003-TC of April 29, 2003. Judges Miguel Camba Campos, René de la Torre, Jaime Nogales, Luis Rojas and Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno voted in favor of this judgment, while Judges Milton Burbano, Enrique Herrería, Mauro Terán and Simón Zavala abstained.83 76. The ruling decided an appeal on unconstitutionality that challenged the constitutionality, owing to the substance and form, of “Law No. 2002-88 Interpretive of Article 113 of the Labor Code.” Regarding the form, the appeal indicated that the National Congress had erroneously classified the law as interpreting rather than amending and, therefore, had forwarded it to the official gazette for publication without having sent it previously to the President of the Republic for his approval or objection, as the Constitution established.84 Regarding the substance, the appeal indicated that the amendment established by that law of the legal framework for calculating the fourteenth salary or educational bonus – which ceased to be the general minimum living wage (SMVG) and became the minimum basic wage – signified a threefold increase in the value of this extra salary, even for public sector workers, which entailed a violation of the constitutional provision establishing that only the President of the Republic “shall have legislative powers to increase public expenditure.”85 77. The Constitutional Tribunal accepted the arguments concerning the substance and declared that Law No. 2002-8 was unconstitutional.86 78. The decision on the unconstitutionality of the D’Hondt method 87 for the assignment of seats was adopted by para Ruling No. 025-2003-TC of February 17, 2004. Judges Miguel 83 to 613). 84 598). 85 Cf. Ruling No. 004-2003-TC of the Constitutional Tribunal (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folios 598 Cf. Ruling No. 0004-2003-TC of the Constitutional Tribunal (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio Cf. Ruling No. 0004-2003-TC of the Constitutional Tribunal (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio 598). 86 598). Cf. Ruling No. 0004-2003-TC of the Constitutional Tribunal (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio 87 The Constitutional Tribunal indicated that “[13.] Article 99 of the Constitution determines two situations: (1) A system of open lists, because citizens do not have the obligation to vote for a list, but can elect the candidates on an individual basis, without the list on which they appear having any importance; (2) A law that conciliates the system of open lists with that of the proportional representation of minorities. [14.] Although it is true that the D’Hondt method has been designed to facilitate the representation of minorities, it is also true that its application is inappropriate in an open list system […], hence this method should not appear in the law to conciliate the open election system with the proportional representation of minorities, thus becoming, contrary to the constitutional mandate. [15.] The D’Hondt method is considered inappropriate with the open election system, because one of its errors, even though this is involuntary, is that the elector who prefers one candidate must vote not only for him, but also for the others on the list, even though he has no preference for them, because this is the only way that ensures the possibility that his candidate will win the desired seat. This occurs because the system of assigning seats under the D’Hondt method is implemented based on the votes received by the list, rather than by the individual, thus achieving an effect that is contrary to the one sought by the people’s sovereignty when opting 25