11 provincial prefects, one full judge and one deputy judge of the Constitutional Court from the shortlist of three names submitted by workers’, campesino, and indigenous organizations, and one full judge and one deputy judge of the Constitutional Court from the shortlist of three names submitted by the commercial chambers. In addition, two full judges and two deputy judges of the Constitutional Court were appointed directly. In those resolutions, the National Congress invoked Articles 130.11 and 275 of the Constitution of the Republic. 19 45. On November 26, 2004, the National Congress issued resolutions R-25-170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, and 176, whereby it appointed seven full judges and seven deputy judges of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. In those resolutions, the National Congress invoked Articles 130.11 and 209 of the Constitution of the Republic. 20 5. Decision of the Constitutional Court on the inadmissibility of the amparo actions 46. On December 2, 2004, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling in response to a request made by the President of the Republic “to prevent trial judges from admitting for processing constitutional amparo actions against Parliamentary Resolution 25-160, adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004.” The Constitutional Court resolved: To rule that to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution, such as No. 25-160, adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004, for an alleged violation of the Constitution, in substance or in form, the only action admissible is an unconstitutionality suit, which must be placed before the Constitutional Court, in line with the resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice adopted on June 27, 2001, and published in Official Register No. 378 on July 27 of that year; and that any amparo remedy lodged with the country’s courts in connection with the aforesaid resolution must be rejected outright and ruled inadmissible by the judges, since to do otherwise would to be admit proceedings against express law, which would lead to the corresponding judicial actions. 21 47. The Supreme Court’s resolution of June 27, 2001, referred to by the Constitutional Court in its decision of December 2, 2004, was a ruling to clarify the guidelines applicable in matters of constitutional amparo. The Constitutional Court’s December 2, 2004 decision cites Article 2.a of the aforesaid resolution from the Supreme Court of Justice, which reads: In particular, amparo action is not admissible and shall be rejected outright when brought with respect to: (a) Regulatory provisions issued by a public authority, such as organic and ordinary laws, decree laws, decrees, ordinances, statutes, regulations, and generally binding (erga omnes) resolutions, since in order to suspend their effects because of a violation of the Constitution, in substance or in form, an unconstitutionality suit lodged with the Constitutional Court must be brought. 22 6. Amparo remedies lodged by several terminated members of the Constitutional Court 19 Annex 7. National Congress Resolutions R-25-161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, and 169, dated November 25, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition received on December 30, 2004.) 20 Annex 8. National Congress Resolutions R-25-170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, and 176, dated November 26, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition received on December 30, 2004.) 21 Annex 9. Decision of the Constitutional Court, dated December 2, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition received on December 30, 22 Annex 10. Resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 27, 2001. (Annex to the initial petition received on December 30, 2004.) 2004.)