OAS Mission in Guatemala Highlights Importance of Objective Assessment of Judicial Experience in Attorney General Election Process

Press Release

OAS Mission in Guatemala Highlights Importance of Objective Assessment of Judicial Experience in Attorney General Election Process

The Special Mission of the Organization of the American States (OAS) for the Strengthening of Democratic Institutions in Guatemala takes note of the injunction filed in the connection with the election of the Attorney General and Head of the Public Prosecutor's Office, which challenges the participation of candidates from the judiciary on the grounds that holding judicial office would not constitute, for the purposes of the constitutional requirement, the practice of the legal profession.

Within the framework of its mandate, the Mission recalls that the inter-American standards and the Constitution recognize the citizens' right to vote and to be elected, as well as the right to seek public office, subject to the requirements established for each position. In processes of this significance, the analysis of requirements must be conducted using clear, objective, and predictable criteria, safeguarding legal certainty, equal access to public office, and institutional stability.

Without prejudice to the powers vested in the Constitutional Court and other national authorities, the Mission notes that Article 251 of the Constitution establishes that the Attorney General must be a licensed attorney and meet the same qualifications as magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice. In turn, Article 216 states, among the requirements for the latter, having served a full term as a magistrate of the Court of Appeals or having practiced law for more than ten years. Furthermore, the Constitution itself requires, as a general rule, that magistrates and judges be licensed attorneys.

From this perspective, the judicial function, carried out by legal professionals within the framework of constitutional and legal powers, constitutes a specialized, continuous, and public form of the practice of law.

In this context, the Mission considers it relevant that a career in the judiciary be assessed in a manner consistent with the constitutional framework, avoiding overly restrictive and formalistic interpretations that could result in an unreasonable limitation on the participation of judges in the election process. In this regard, a constitutional interpretation should be carried out in accordance with the purpose or intent of the constitutional and legal requirements.

Finally, the Mission reiterates the importance that any decision on this matter be well-reasoned, consistent with the Constitution and applicable legal framework, and contributes to strengthening public trust, respect for the rule of law and democratic institutions.

Reference: E-034/26