Origin or not of the removal of the mayor due to improper memory and account by the municipal council
The Organic Law of the Municipal Public Power (LOPPM, 2010) establishes that the Mayor must be accountable for its management.
In effect, before the Municipal Council must present it in the second month following the end of each financial year of its mandate, the Management Report and before the Municipal Comptroller, the Account that must include a detailed report of the unpaid or delinquent obligations of taxpayers. The financial year - in accordance with the Organic Law of the Financial Administration of the Public Sector (2012) - begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 of that same year.
The LOPMM establishes that, after thirty consecutive days of the opportunity set for the presentation of the accountability of its management or of the extensions granted by the Municipal Council or by the Municipal Comptroller, as the case may be, without the Mayor having complied Such obligation in the manner foreseen, opens the possibility of a declaration of serious misconduct for omission of fulfilling the duties imposed by the position, and the intervention of the Public Ministry may be required.
The Law in question allows that, in this scenario, any citizen can also go before the Public Ministry or the General Comptroller of the Republic and file the corresponding complaint.
As the Municipal Council is assigned the competence to exercise a control function over the Local Executive, it could be the case that what the Mayor has presented does not satisfy the legislators, which could lead to a conflict of authorities. Obviously, this would presuppose affecting the regular management of the competences of local organs and entities, not benefiting from it the communities they must serve.
Currently, it is not feasible for councilors to urge a process to remove the mayor, as it undermines the original nature of the commission to gain access to office. In fact, the Supreme Court has as a background the disapplication of the rules of the currently repealed Organic Law of the Municipal Regime, replacing those of participation - not only those provided for by the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (CRBV, 1999), but also by the LOPPM, the Organic Law of the Electoral Power (2002) and the Law of Electoral Processes (2009).
The mayor being included in the positions of popular election and, therefore, implies - according to the CRBV - that it is revocable, the electoral route would only proceed through consultation would endorse. Different is the case of death, resignation, interdiction or judicial detention, for example.
It is possible to formulate an approach when you are facing the scenario that the Municipal Comptroller or the General of the Republic knows of a complaint on this subject. Could you promote the removal of the Mayor, given that he does not enjoy the privilege of immunity?
The Organic Law of the General Comptroller of the Republic and the National Fiscal Control System (LOCGR, 2010), establishes the possibility for the Comptroller General of the Republic to disable the performance of public functions, which is reminiscent of public opinion due to notable cases with centimetry in the media and controversial judicial decisions that are irrelevant.
The jurisprudence has ruled on dismissals made by the Comptroller Body in legislators, who do possess it. In what this author has read, it has been concluded - in these officials - that it is not possible because it would have to be managed through other means, the consultation being one of them.
Now, after the process has been substantiated and decided by the Comptroller General, as established by the LOCGR, determined the administrative responsibility for having a patrimonial injury, it can be sent to the Public Ministry so that it can develop its powers from a criminal perspective.
The responsibilities mentioned by the CRBV are independent from each other and are processed by the procedures established in the legal system.
