By Arthur Shaw

Lawyer Manuel Rachadell argues, according to the Saturday December 29, 2012 online edition of El Universal, that:

“If the Venezuelan president-elect does not take office next January 10 in default of a formal explanation for his full absence, the Congress’ speaker must stand in for him.”

The second paragraph of Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution says “When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.”
Note that Art. 233 speaks about the president-elect becoming “permanently unavailable to serve” prior to inauguration.

This lawyer confuses the president’s permanent unavailability to serve with his not taking the oath of office on Jan. 10. Article 233 speaks only about the former but this lawyer babbles about the latter. 233 says nothing about Jan. 10 or any other date for taking the oath.

Article 233 carefully defines permanent unavailability as the consequence of one of six listed circumstances — namely (1) death, 2) resignation, (3) removal by the supreme court, (4) permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical team picked by the supreme court with authority from the National Assembly, (5) abandonment of position declared by the National Assembly, and (6) recall by the voters.

Taking the oath on Jan.10 is none of these six listed conditions of permanent unavailability nor an instance of one of the unavailabilities. This lawyer made up himself this alleged constitutional requirement of a “formal explanation for his [the president-elect’s] full absence. “If such an explanation were constitutionally required, the only thing President-elect Hugo Chavez has to say is that “I’m neither (1) nor (2) nor (3) nor (4) nor (5) nor (6). But there’s no such constitutional requirement, so Chavez doesn’t have to do what the lawyer says.

Oath taking on Jan. 10 is something this lawyer tries to smuggle into 233. Chavez once took the oath of office on August 19, 2000, but nobody, least of all the National Assembly, said back then that Chavez was permanently unavailable to serve.

Why is a failure to take the oath on Jan.10 not an instance of “(5) abandonment of position declared by the National Assembly?”

An abandonment is the intentional giving up or forsaking of something, not difficulties imposed by illness. Does a husband “abandon” his wife because he gets sick? Plus there is the matter of persuading the National Assembly — which must declare an act of “abandonment” — to adopt an eccentric and erroneous definition of “abandonment” in order to overturn the will of the people as expressed on Oct. 7.

Article 231 which mentions Jan.10 doesn’t say that the president-elect has to take the oath of office on Jan. 10. Article 231 only says the president-elect takes office or power on Jan. 10 if he takes the oath of office on a date left unspecified.

Here’s 231 “The candidate elected shall take office as President of the Republic on January 10 of the first year of his constitutional term, by taking an oath before the National Assembly. If for any supervening reason, the person elected President of the Republic cannot be sworn in before the National Assembly, he shall take the oath of office before the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.”

See? Jan. 10 applies only to taking office, not to taking the oath before the National Assembly.
The National Assembly may want to toss this hot potato to the Supreme Court because 231 doesn’t specify a date or place for taking the oath before the supreme court. The “supervening reason,” which 231 requires, is of course Chavez’s illness.

Even if, on Jan 10, the Oppos [that is, the sector of the electorate led by the bourgeoisie] scream and riot with the full support of the whole bourgeois media, the National Assembly, defended by the sector of the electorate led by the revolutionary proletariat, should adhere to the Constitution.