UPDATE: Please see my new article, “No ‘Coup’ in Honduras,” for a more complete look at the issues raised in this article. My initial thoughts regarding the actions by Honduran leaders were greatly revised upon learning that there is no mechanism for impeachment in the Honduran constitution.
Everything else has been moved past the jump.
“ABOVE THE FOLD” UPDATE:
According to commenter Viva Honduras Libre, the Honduran constitution provides that anyone who even proposes changing the one-term limit for executives immediately “ceases in their functions.” The original and translation, as provided by Viva Honduras Libre:
ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado.
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 años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.TRANSLATION Article 239 The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again).
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.
If this article means that a president who attempts to amend the constitution to change the term limit provision is automatically, by operation of law, removed from office, then there was no ‘coup’ in any sense. The actions of the Honduran supreme court certainly indicate that this is the accepted interpretation of Article 239, but without knowing Honduran law better, I hesitate to say this is correct. Based on what I know of the law (and not just as an “Ugly American;” I have some experience with international law and the laws of various members of the EU as well) it seems likely that there is a specific method for removing an executive beyond Article 239, which may only operate to ‘suspend’ an officeholder in some sense. At the least, a formal impeachment proceeding provides continuity and due process that is not available where removal from office is automatic and immediate. Until Viva Honduras Libre provides more information on Honduran law, I cannot know whether the removal of Zelaya was handled properly or not. I will update again at that time, but for now (and solely for the sake of making my life easier), I will assume that my points remain valid, albeit with an even bigger caveat than previously.
ORIGINAL POST:
Earlier this week, the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was taken into custody by the military and removed from the country. The international community — most especially Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, but joined by Obama, the EU, and others — yelled, “Coup! Coup!”
However, many blogs and editorial pages (most conservative, but not all) noted that what looked like a standard-issue Central American coup was a bit more complex than it seemed on the surface. Most main-stream news sources neglected the background, which showed that Zelaya was a Chavez protege hellbent on turning Honduras into an oil-poor version of Venezuela’s leftist dictatorship. His actions were declared illegal by the country’s supreme court, which issued the order for the military arrest, and most politicians across the political spectrum supported the Zelaya ouster. For further background see this excellent editorial by Glenn Garvin in the Miami Herald, and this article by Toby Westerman in the Canada Free Press.
Many, if not most, of the larger conservative blogs have criticized Obama’s reaction to the events in Honduras, comparing that reaction to his hesitancy in Iran and calling for support of the ‘coup’ on the grounds that it was to prevent a leftist dictatorship, not to impose a military one. (See, for example, Hot Air here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here; Ace of Spades; Jawa Report; TownHall; Gateway Pundit; etc.) RedState is even pushing a telephone campaign to pressure Congress into supporting the new government.
I think the complaint vis a vis Obama’s reaction to Iran is valid, but with regard to the proper response to the ‘coup’ itself I disagree with both the administration and its critics. I would like to start by pointing out that I have not read the constitution of Honduras, nor have I studied Honduran law, so I will be making various assumptions that may turn out to be incorrect. In my defense, I do not believe that anyone else who is commenting on this, from Obama on down, has done so either. My primary assumptions are that (1) Zelaya’s actions were impeachable offenses in addition to unconstitutional (as held by the Honduran supreme court), (2) the Honduran constitution stipulates a process for impeachment of a sitting president, and (3) military arrest of the president prior to any impeachment proceedings is counter to the Honduran constitution. I believe that these are all pretty reasonable assumptions, but they are based only on my familiarity with U.S. law, so may be flawed.
What the Hondurans should have done was attempt to remove Zelaya through the constitutional impeachment proceedings. If necessary, the military could have stepped in to prevent the illegal referendum, but Zelaya himself should have at least nominally been left in office until properly removed. I understand that the courts, legislature, and military all felt that there was a crisis that needed to be resolved immediately, but based on the public information there does not seem to have been such an emergency that the proper forms could not be followed. At least in the American system, the courts have the authority to order law enforcement to carry out their orders, but they do not have the authority to summarily remove members of the legislature or executive. Even though the Honduran legislature subsequently ratified the actions of the supreme court, the court and military exceeded their authority. Therefore, the transfer of power truly was a coup, and the failure to stay within the law should be condemned. For self-interest though, if for no other reason, it is not surprising that existing governments have opposed the extralegal removal of an executive.
On the other hand, everyone involved in deposing Zelaya appears to have acted to save democracy in Honduras from the imposition of a Chavez-style dictatorship. It is this motive that leads commentators to support the transfer of power and rebuke the harsh response of the U.S. and others. They argue that the coup should be looked at as a fait accompli, and the results are more important than the methods.
I believe that both approaches are wrong, and that they are both right. The coup should in fact be condemned, but that condemnation needs to be tempered by an acknowledgment of the purpose and effect of the actions taken by an apparently unanimous Honduran establishment. Leaving aside the hypocrisy of speaking quickly on the Honduran situation after trying to ignore the Iranian protests for as long as possible, I believe President Obama should have said something to the effect of: “The Honduran constitution must be respected by both sides, and the U.S. does not condone extralegal activity. It appears the Honduran courts and military acted illegally, but so too did Zelaya. We are withholding judgment on whether to recognize the new government or continue to recognize Zelaya until we have had an opportunity to review the facts in more detail.”
Obama’s reactions to the recent international crises — tempered response to Iran and quick condemnation of Honduras — should have been reversed.
But I believe those calling for unequivocal support of Honduras are wrong as well. The illegality of moving against the president with force rather than through the constitutional procedures should not be ignored. Sometimes it is necessary to take the law in one’s own hands, but those times are rare indeed, and one must be prepared to suffer the consequences. This does not appear to have been one of those times. Further, while noble intentions are all well and good, there is a reason they are considered the paving stones on the road to hell: specfically, most people believe they are acting for the right reasons, whether they are or not. Few if any people believe that they are evil, and even a psychotic madman like Hitler acted like he did because, in his warped worldview, it was right.
The law exists in order to provide objective criteria for right and wrong. If everyone is free to act based solely on their own conscience, that is anarchy. The ends justify the means in only the most extraordinary circumstances.
I believe that Honduras is better off with out Zelaya in power, but I also believe that the rule of law — necessary for a functioning democracy — was severely damaged by the coup.
You are wrong. Do not apply your “assumptions” to a situation if you know nothing except how the U.S. would do it. It is the height of arrogance and sanctimony to apply your world view based on your expereince and your facts that gives all of us Americans a bad name in Latin America.
This is a legal removal of a president that is in violation of the Honduran Constitution.
This was not a coup. Zelaya was legally removed by the military at the request of the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court that have the following two articles of the Honduran Constitution as the legal authority to do so;
ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado.
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 años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
TRANSLATION Article 239 The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again).
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.
ARTICULO 205.- Corresponden al Congreso Nacional las atribuciones siguientes:
15. Declarar si ha lugar o no a formación de causa contra el Presidente
20. Aprobar o improbar la conducta administrativa del Poder Ejecutivo, Poder Judicial y
TRANSLATION – Article 205 – Congress has the following authority:
15 To indict the President
20 To approve or disapprove of the administrative conduct of the Execurive Branch, …
Furthermore, there are seven counts of violating the Honduran Constituion now outstanding against Zelaya and should he follow through with his threat to go back to Honduras tommorow he will be arrested.
Reply
brad Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:54
I noted that I could very well be wrong, based on what the Honduran constitution actually said. Thank you for the information and translation.
Under Article 239, does “cease in their functions” (“cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos”), mean that they are automatically and immediately removed from office by action of law (meaning no action is necessary by the legislature or otherwise)? Or does it mean that they are merely ‘suspended’ in some fashion? The actions of the Honduran supreme court seem to suggest the former, but if there are other legal hurdles before formally removing the president from office my point would stand.
Either way, I will update the post to reflect this information, but your response would make it more complete.
Reply
Let me see if I can find the corresponding law and then translate it. When I have it I’ll come back here and drop it in your comments section. Ltr.
Reply
This is the authority the Honduran government is relying on to justify their removal of Zelaya. There’s a lot of it and I pulled it from the website of one of Tegucigalpa’s daily newspapers
http://www.laprensahn.com/Ediciones/2009/07/01/Noticias/20-anos-de-carcel-le-caerian-a-Mel-si-vuelve
The gist of the charges used to remove Zelaya and now bring charges of treason and subversion against Zelaya are laid out below. They are saying that Zelaya, by his actions placed himself against the Honduran Constitution and more importantly according to the Congress, the Honduran Justice Ministry, and the Honduran Supreme Court, outside all the laws of Honduras.
If he had obeyed the initial orders to cease and desist last week, parliamentary procedure would have been used to bring charges against him in the legislature under constitutional protections. However, when he called his supporters into the streets in direct violation of Honduran law and as a direct challenge to the soveriegn authority of the Honduran state he demonstrated his willingness to challenge the very foundations of the democratic state and thus by blatantly disregarding those laws and his duty to respect those laws he effectively forfeited his rights as President and put himself outside the legal protections of the nation. The only recourse left to them at that point was immediate arrest.
In essence, Zelaya is now saying that he murdered his parents but the court should have mercy on him because he is now an orphan.
The rest has been media spin and powerful leftist allies. If I have time I’ll translate the entire thing and if I find any more info I’ll drop it in your commets.
Decreto Legislativo
CONSIDERANDO: Que la conducta del presidente de la República ha provocado en el pueblo hondureño un clima de confrontación, división y zozobra, al grado de poner en peligro inminente de rompimiento del Estado de derecho y la gobernabilidad.
CONSIDERANDO: Que de conformidad con los artículos 245 numeral 1), 321 y 322 de la Constitución de la República, es deber del ciudadano presidente de la República ser fiel a la República, cumplir y hacer cumplir la Constitución y las leyes, los tratados y convenciones y demás disposiciones legales.
CONSIDERANDO: Que es potestad del Congreso Nacional velar, aprobar o improbar la conducta de los poderes constituidos y demás instituciones del Estado.
CONSIDERANDO: Que los servidores del Estado no tienen más facultades que las que expresamente les confiere la ley, que todo acto que ejecuten fuera de la ley es nulo e implica responsabilidad; que los funcionarios son depositarios de la autoridad, responsables de su conducta oficial, sujetos a la ley y jamás superiores a ella.
CONSIDERANDO: Que es manifiesta la conducta irregular del presidente de la República ciudadano JOSÉ MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES al violentar de manera reiterada la fidelidad a la República y al estamento jurídico de nuestro país, poniendo en inminente peligro el Estado de derecho y el sistema de gobierno democrático que el pueblo hondureño por voluntad soberana ha escogido y que por ende el Congreso Nacional está llamado a observar y hacer cumplir.
- 2 -
CONSIDERANDO: Que el accionar del señor José Manuel Zelaya Rosales es suficiente motivo para que este Congreso Nacional proceda a reprochar su conducta, independientemente de la renuncia interpuesta al cargo para el que fue electo.
CONSIDERANDO: Que de conformidad al artículo 242 de la Constitución de la República, en ausencia absoluta del presidente y vicepresidente de la República, el Poder Ejecutivo será ejercido por el Presidente del Congreso Nacional.
POR TANTO.
DECRETA.
Artículo 1. El Congreso Nacional en aplicación de los artículos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 40 numeral 4), 205 numeral 20) y 218 numeral 3), 242, 321,322 y 323 de la Constitución de la República acuerda:
A. Improbar la conducta del presidente de la República ciudadano JOSÉ MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES por las reiteradas violaciones a la Constitución de la República y las leyes y la inobservancia de las resoluciones y sentencias de los órganos jurisdiccionales.
B. Separar al ciudadano JOSÉ MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES del cargo de Presidente Constitucional de la República de Honduras.
- 3 -
Articulo 2. Nombrar constitucionalmente al ciudadano ROBERTO MICHELETI BAIN actual presidente del Congreso Nacional, en el cargo de presidente Constitucional de la República por el tiempo que falte para terminar el período constitucional y que culmina el 27 de Enero del año 2010.
Artículo 3. El presente decreto entrará en vigencia a partir de su aprobación por los dos tercios de votos de los miembros que conforman el Congreso Nacional y en consecuencia es de ejecución inmediata.
Dado en la ciudad de Tegucigalpa, municipio del Distrito Central, en el salón de sesiones del Congreso a los veintiocho días de junio del año dos mil nueve.
JUAN RAMÓN
VELÁSQUEZ NAZAR
PRESIDENTE
JOSE ALFREDO SAAVEDRA PAZ SECRETARIO
MARÍA FELÍCITA GUZMÁN F.
SECRETARIA
Reply
And here is the Congressional Authority for his immediate removal provided for under mandate by the Honduran Constitution ARTICULO 205
INFORME ESPECIAL DEL
CONGRESO NACIONAL
“Nosotros los suscritos miembros de la comisión especial nombrados por el señor presidente del Congreso Nacional para realizar las investigaciones necesarias sobre los últimos acontecimientos que mantienen sumida a la sociedad en una crisis de intranquilidad social, jurídica y política, provocada por acciones arbitrarias del Poder Ejecutivo de manera reiterada, confrontando a los demás Poderes de Estado y las instituciones que conforman consecuentemente al Estado de derecho.
Es del conocimiento público que estas acciones por parte del señor ciudadano don José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, han generando un clima de incertidumbre, confrontación y división en la sociedad hondureña, preocupación que ha recogido este Congreso y por ende la suscrita comisión especial.
Esta comisión estima que el poder ejecutivo ha desafiado el cumplimiento de deberes constitucionales y legales que de una u otra forma inciden en el normal desarrollo de las actividades de la administración pública. Para tal efecto hemos tenido a la vista la documentación respectiva:
a) La no sanción de más de 96 decretos y leyes remitidos al señor Presidente en cumplimiento del proceso de formación de la ley.
b) La no remisión del Presupuesto General de la República, que según mandato constitucional debió estar presentado al Congreso Nacional a más tardar el 15 de septiembre del año pasado.
c) Las sentencias dictadas por el Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo y ratificadas por la Corte de Apelaciones de lo Contencioso Administrativo de Tegucigalpa, referente a la ilegalidad del proceso de la cuarta urna y los actos relacionados con la encuesta.
d) Notificaciones al Poder Ejecutivo de la Fiscalía General de la República sobre la ilegalidad de la referida encuesta.
e) Sentencia del recurso de amparo con suspensión del acto reclamado sobre la remoción del jefe del Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas.
f) Acta especial de comiso y de depósito en custodia de material electoral, nombrando depositario del mismo al coronel de aviación Marco Vitelio Castillo Brown.
g) Decreto emitido en Consejo de Ministros No. PCM-2009 publicado en el diario oficial La Gaceta en fecha 25 de junio del presente año, en el que se ordena la realización de la encuesta de opinión publica para la Convocatoria a una ASAMBLEA NACIONAL CONSTITUYENTE y que comenzó a ejecutarse el día de hoy.
A lo anterior podemos también mencionar por ser hechos notorios de público conocimiento, difundidos por los medios de comunicación social, los siguientes: la poca atención a problemas sustanciales que sufre el pueblo hondureño como la gripe H1N1 que ya ha ocasionado pérdidas humanas; los damnificados y la reconstrucción de las zonas afectadas por el terremoto; la crisis financiera que ha ocasionado la pérdida de más de cien mil puestos de trabajo; la inseguridad que día a día se incrementa y enluta a miles de familias y ahuyenta la inversión nacional y extranjera que requiere Honduras como país que lucha por su desarrollo; la sustracción del material electoral decomisado, así como el enfrentamiento constante con los operadores de justicia.
Todo lo cual demuestra que la conducta del ciudadano Presidente hace peligrar su fidelidad a la República, y al cumplimiento de la Constitución y las leyes que enmarcan el accionar de todo funcionario, poniendo en precario el Estado de derecho, la gobernabilidad y el sistema democrático.
Que es cuanto podemos informar al respecto, debidamente documentados.
Dado en la ciudad de Tegucigalpa, M.D.C. a los veinticinco días del mes de junio del años dos mil nueve.
RICARDO RODRíGUEZ RIGOBERTO CHANG CASTILLO
JOSE TORIBIO AGUILERA ENRIQUE RODRíGUEZ
WILFREDO BUSTILLO CASTELLANOS”.
Reply
brad Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 13:08
Thank you very much for all of this.
I’m going to make a new post specifically to compile this information, and do a bit of research myself to make sure I understand it. I still think the legislature should have acted before the military, but ‘coup’ is definitely not the right word for what happened.
Reply
[...] this morning, I posted an article which essentially said that both those condemning the ‘coup’ in Honduras and those [...]