Publications | ||||||||
Arms Show Reports | ||||||||
Articles | ||||||||
Book Reviews | ||||||||
Looking Forward | ||||||||
Papers & Studies | ||||||||
Reports | ||||||||
Testimony | ||||||||
Transcripts | ||||||||
Issues | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Browse by: | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Iran in Latin America: Threat or Axis of Annoyance?
Senior Fellow Douglas Farah's analysis of the debate over the level of threat posed by Iran's expanding diplomatic, trade and military presence in Latin America, and its stated ambition to continue to broaden these ties.
Chinese Naval Modernization: Altering the Balance of Power
Richard Fisher details China's naval modernization program and the potential impacts on U.S. interests in the Western Pacific.
What Really Happened in Honduras?
Email this article
Print this article
Download as PDF
For those not familiar with Honduras’s constitutional history, it is impossible to understand what happened here this past weekend. In 1982 my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy. After 19 previous constitutions--two during the Spanish colonial period; three as part of the Republic of Central America (1823-40); and 14 as an independent nation—the 1982 Constitution, at 27, has endured the longest.
It has endured because it responds and adapts to our changing reality: of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.
It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions--one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article
that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.
During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful country has lived similar trial and error processes until they were able to find legal vehicles that adapt to their reality. France had 13 Constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958; it has since passed 22 constitutional revisions. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British--pragmatic as they are--in 900
years have changed it so many times that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.
Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency of Honduras.
These are the facts: Last Friday, President Manuel Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly” (Presidential Decree PCM-20). The decree was published on Saturday in the official newspaper. With this event, Zelaya triggered a constitutional protection that automatically removed him from office.
Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. In Honduras, 365 articles can be changed by Congress. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
How is that kind of intent sanctioned in our Constitution? With the immediate removal of those involved in the action as stated in article 239 of the Constitution, which reads: “No citizen who 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.” Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says “immediately”--as in “instant”, as in “no trial required,” as in “no impeachment needed.”
“Continuismo” has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. This instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents--thus the immediate sanction by our supreme law. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.
The Supreme Court and the Attorney General ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by 123 of the 128 members of Congress present that day, with five of them--the only supporters of Zelaya--absent.
Much has been made in the media of “one more Latin American military coup d’état.” That is nonsense. The Honduran military took their orders from the legal systems and acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by their actions.
I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.
Octavio Sánchez is a lawyer (J.D. Universidad Nacional Autonóma de Honduras; LL.M. Harvard Law School), former Presidential Advisor (2002-2005) and Minister of Culture (2005-2006) of the Republic of Honduras. Visiting Scholar 2007-2009 NLCIFT and James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona.
Download the Spanish language translation.
