Free Markets, Free People

Honduras: Will the Rule of Law Prevail?

Watching the events unfold in Central America over the past week has been an infuriating and dismaying exercise. Too many people, either sadly uninformed or maliciously misinforming, have referred to the ouster of Mel Zelaya by the unified government of Honduras as a “military coup” and an illegal transfer of power. Not only are such castigations dead wrong, they are made without any justification and completely against the actual Honduran Constitution.

Hello, Triple A?  I seem to have locked my presidency inside my country.  Can you help?

Hello, Locks-R-Us? I seem to have locked my presidency inside my country. Can you help?


To understand just how far off base these accusations of illegality are, ask yourself what law is alleged to have been broken. Has anyone cited an actual provision of the Constitution or a statute that’s been violated? Of course not, because there is none. In fact, if any of those who have been so quick to condemn the Honduran government had actually done just a smidgeon of research, they would have found the ouster of Zelaya to be self-perpetuated and entirely within the rule of law.

To wit, here is Title II, Chapter 4, Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, first in Spanish:

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República.

El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.

And in English#:

Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

The plain text of Article 239 quite clearly states that Zelaya, through his own actions, ended his presidency. By seeking to hold a referendum on whether Hondurans should consider changing the term-limits portion of the Constitution, Zelaya’s official duties were ended “immediately” and he was further barred from participating in public office for a period of ten years. Period, the end.

Some may try to argue that Zelaya did not receive any due process in his ouster, but that argument must fail. Even under U.S. jurisprudence, due process is simply all the process that is due. In this case, once Zelaya was determined to have violated the term-limits provision of Article 239 by proposing its reform, which Zelaya has basically admitted and which the Honduran Supreme Court derivatively found, then he received his due process. Despite the decisions against him, Zelaya decided to go ahead with his illegal referendum, gathered a mob together, and invaded the military compound where the (Venezuelan-created) ballot boxes were being kept. He fully intended to hold the referendum on Sunday June 28th had he not been stopped.

These, among other actions, were what led the Congress to pursue impeachment, the Attorney General to issue an arrest warrant on Saturday June 25, 2009, and the Supreme Court to issue its own arrest warrant on Sunday resulting in Zelaya’s removal from the country:

Honduras’s military acted under judicial orders in deposing President Manuel Zelaya, Supreme Court Justice Rosalinda Cruz said, rejecting the view of President Barack Obama and other leaders that he was toppled in a coup.

“The only thing the armed forces did was carry out an arrest order,” Cruz, 55, said in a telephone interview from the capital, Tegucigalpa. “There’s no doubt he was preparing his own coup by conspiring to shut down the congress and courts.”

Cruz said the court issued a sealed arrest order for Zelaya on June 26, charging him with treason and abuse of power, among other offenses. Zelaya had repeatedly breached the constitution by pushing ahead with a vote about rewriting the nation’s charter that the court ruled illegal, and which opponents contend would have paved the way for a prohibited second term.

[...]

The arrest order she cited, approved unanimously by the court’s 15 justices, was released this afternoon along with documents pertaining to a secret investigation that went on for weeks under the high court’s supervision.

[...]

Cruz said the military decided to shuttle Zelaya out of the country for his safety and that of other Hondurans because riots would’ve erupted had he been held for trial.

“If he had been allowed to stay in the country, there would’ve been blood on the streets,” she said.

To recap, Zelaya violated Art. 239 by proposing and then attempting to hold a referendum to change his term limits, which referendum was declared illegal by the Supreme Court and the Congress, and then he tried to go ahead with it anyway. In the meantime, aside from the secret, court-approved investigation going on for some time behind the scenes, the Attorney General and the Congress sought Zelaya’s impeachment, and the Supreme Court and the Attorney General each issued arrest warrants when Zelaya pressed ahead with his illegal referendum. The military responded to the court-ordered arrest and took Zelaya into custody on June 28th.

But what about the deportation to Costa Rica? Surely that was an illegal action? Heck, even a top Honduran military official is saying so:

The military officers who rushed deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya out of the country Sunday committed a crime but will be exonerated for saving the country from mob violence, the army’s top lawyer said.

In an interview with The Miami Herald and El Salvador’s elfaro.net, army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya — and they circumvented laws when they did it.

It was the first time any participant in Sunday’s overthrow admitted committing an offense and the first time a Honduran authority revealed who made the decision that has been denounced worldwide.

”We know there was a crime there,” said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. “In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.”

Of course, it wasn’t the first time anyone took credit for the decision (the Supreme Court has been saying for days that it order Zelaya’s capture), and Inestroza also declares that whatever “crime” may have been committed against Zelaya would be absolved anyway:

“What was more beneficial, remove this gentleman from Honduras or present him to prosecutors and have a mob assault and burn and destroy and for us to have to shoot?” he said. “If we had left him here, right now we would be burying a pile of people.”

This week, Deputy Attorney General Roy David Urtecho told reporters that he launched an investigation into why Zelaya was removed by force instead of taken to court. Article 24 of Honduras’ penal code will exonerate the joint chiefs of staff who made the decision, because it allows for making tough decisions based on the good of the state, Inestroza said.

Another provision to keep in mind is Title II, Chapter 3, Article 42:

Article 42: The legal rights of any citizen is lost:

5) If the citizen incites, promotes, or supports the continuance or the re-election of the President of the Republic;

Accordingly, not only has Zelaya lost his ability to continue in office through his own actions, he has also lost his rights as a citizen, among those which would presumably be the right to remain in the country. In the end, that all spells a one-way ticket to anywhere but Honduras for the would-be Chavista dictator. Moreover, Zelaya should be very thankful that he wasn’t ousted in the old-fashioned way which was much more permanent and painful.

The only question remaining is, why would our President, as leader of a country founded on the rule of law over the rule of men, opt to side with flouter of constitutional democracy instead of the leaders who took great pains to ensure that the country’s constitution was adhered to? Unfortunately, I’m afraid that there are no good answers to that question, and that our President is helping to precipitate a major crisis in Central America. Was this the change we were hoping for?

[General HT to Fausta for many of the above links]
________________________________________
# I’ve checked the translation against some Spanish to English translators and it appears to be essentially correct to me. Any suggested changes are welcome.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

13 Responses to Honduras: Will the Rule of Law Prevail?

  • After the ball fumbles our President has committed along with his alleged Department of State in foreign interactions since the commencement of his term I’m not at all surprised.   Consider the faux pas interactions with the British as an ongoing series of examples in how NOT to conduct foreign relations.
    So when he thinks he has a clear cut situation (hey! He can understand Banana Republic Military Coup, he don’t need no stinking consultations for that!  and neither does his staff, they grew up during the 60’s and 70’s man, they understand how them banana republics work without referring to any documents the banana republic might have, like, uh, a Constitution) he jumps up and renders his faulty, crappy  judgment, consistent with previous faulty crappy judgments in foreign (and domestic) policy.
    And NOW he’s STUCK, he looks like the trigger happy Chicago gangster that he is (can’t be a cowboy kids, he’s not from Texas ya know!  So we have to find another analogy…I like this one!).  And in support of a leftist wannabe dictator too…How appropriate is that?
    More drastically wrongheaded cluelessness from hopey changitude land.
    If Honduras goes completely to hell, you can lay this colossal blunder at the feet of the annointed one.
    Heh, who am I kiddin…it’s Bush’s fault.
     

  • I speak fluent spanish, Michael. Your translation is correct.

  • WOW, thats some strict provisions there, someone REALLY wanted to prevent a Chavista in Honduras lol, don’t blame them.  Talk about a principled stand, basically making a provision, and them criminialising even the attempt to change it. If it wasnt for the fact that its a limiting of power, id think it came directly from a dictators playbook. Im not sure what to make of that.

    • I’d call it demonstration of an understanding of the fundamental nature of the human beast.  George Washingtons are very very RARE.    They enforced what we had done by tradition until Roosevelt broke it, bringing about the 22nd Amendment.  Should he have relinquished power?  Yeah, I think he should have, because it WAS tradition and the country would have carried on the war, to a successful conclusion, without him.  His death in office was a demonstration of that to my mind.
      Depending on the President, big surprise, I sometimes feel 4 years is too short, but, lately, I think it’s waaaaaay to long.  You get the idea.  The Hondurans obviously felt it best not to leave it to the good nature of their senior executive to accept that their day in the sun was over gracefully.  Power corrupts, absolute power…absolutely.    I may think ONE term is not enough, but I’m not Honduran and don’t get a say in the matter.
      I think the very nature of their history, much like the founding fathers here, led them to understand the need for an absolute limit quite intimately, even if we, initially, did not.

    • Actually, it doesn’t criminalize attempting to change the provision. But it’s written so that someone cannot attempt to change the provision for his own benefit.

      The person who proposes the change is forbidden from holding office for 10 years. So, unless someone’s operating on a very long-range plan, he would not be changing it for himself.

  • The only question remaining is, why would our President, as leader of a country founded on the rule of law over the rule of men, opt to side with flouter of constitutional democracy instead of the leaders who took great pains to ensure that the country’s constitution was adhered to?

    Really?  This is a question?
    Perhaps I am far more cynical than most, but frankly I think the answer is obvious.  If this were to be allowed to stand, it would send a clear message that parts of a Constitution that limit one’s term in office should be viewed as beyond question.  If it says one term only, or perhaps two terms only, then that is what you must hold to.
    Why would Obama so much as consider supporting such an idea?

  • “What was more beneficial, remove this gentleman from Honduras or present him to prosecutors and have a mob assault and burn and destroy and for us to have to shoot?” [Honduran army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza] said. “If we had left him here, right now we would be burying a pile of people.”

    Let’s stipulate that Col. Inestroza is being completely truthful when he says that summarily and (as he admits) illegally deporting Zelaya was necessary to avoid bloodshed.

    He’s still on a very slippery slope.

    The rule of law doesn’t recognize this sort of expediency, nor should it. A man should be neither exonerated or punished without due process no matter what the consequences MIGHT be. The phrase “for the safety of the people” has been boilerplate for many a despot in history. Had events turned out a bit differently, it’s not hard to imagine Zelaya issuing a statement from the presidential palace that he’d made himself president for life and disbanded the Honduran congress and courts “for the safety of the people”.

    I don’t say that the Hondurans who ejected Zelaya are despots; based on the evidence I’ve seen, they acted with honorable and lawful intent though not strictly within the letter of the law. However, it would have been much more preferable for the Honduran police, executing a legal warrant, to have arrested Zelaya and held him in prison pending a trial that extended to him such rights (bail, counsel, jury, public proceedings, etc) that the Honduran legal system allows. If his supporters and (perhaps) the Venezuelans cared to make trouble… Well, then that’s when the Hondurans get a chance to see that democracy and the rule of law are things worth fighting for. As it stands, the Hondurans have some cause to regret a hasty decision to circumvent the rule of law. Let’s hope that they don’t have greater cause in the future.

    (As my pointer hovers over the “Submit Comment” button, I pause to think about what I hope that I or any other patriotic American would do if a president decided to monkey with the Constitution to make himself president for life. The phrase “shoot on sight” leaps to mind, and I’d say that any American who gunned down such a would-be dictator would earn a place in the pantheon of American heroes. Zelaya can count himself lucky that his military put him on a plane to Costa Rica and not on a one-way ride to the morgue.)

  • However, it would have been much more preferable for the Honduran police, executing a legal warrant, to have arrested Zelaya and held him in prison pending a trial that extended to him such rights (bail, counsel, jury, public proceedings, etc) that the Honduran legal system allows.
    Arguably, any duty to provide Zelaya with legal process ended the moment he led a mob to try to carry out the referendum anyway. The courts had already rendered their decision — he could not proceed legally — so he attempted to override the legal process with violent action.
     
    At that point (IMHO), his actions shifted from legally dodgy to out-and-out insurrection. As the military is charged with defending their constitutional order against insurrection, their choice to exile him is a relatively mild one.
     

  • They should have let this bastard land then gunned him down, and yes, I am serious.  As long as he is alive he is a threat to their freedom, since they have evil neighbors who will gladly enable him. They may have to try an assasination. Once he is dead, then its all over with. Sure the rest of the world will be pissed off, but so what?

  • Living in Honduras for 14 years, I have to applaud how well the deportation was handled. 80 percent of Hondurans, rich and poor alike support the ouster. Zelaya is about as corrupt as they come. It is amazing this was done without a bloodbath. And the General is wrong. A strong Constitution and Democratic procedure were followed religiously.
    I’m proud to be standing along in a now freer Honduras.
    From Tegucigalpa
     
     
     

  • good point, i actually kinda like it when looking at it that way.

  • Constitution? We don’t need no steenkin’ Constitution!

    They don’t respect our Constitution, why on Earth whould they respect someone else’s?

  • The most charitable interpretation of Pres. Obama’s actions (and the one I actually hold) is that he simply acted on instinct and mirrored what he’d been indoctrinated into.
    “Military forces taking action against Presidents are always bad” and “The side the US [if under a Republican administration] would support in Central America is always wrong”.
    Either of those principles alone, let alone both, would have led him to the snap judgment he made, without any overarching evil plan to undermine Presidential term limits in some general sense, or to foster Chavist or Castroist goals.