The National Court of Appeals lacked the competence to grant the license requested by federal judge Ariel Lijo, which led the Supreme Court to annul that decision. Judge Ricardo Lorenzetti abstained from signing the resolution in question. The Court argued that Lijo's license request infringed the constitutional doctrine that prohibits double judicial office.
This morning, judges Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Manuel García Mansilla signed a resolution that has generated controversy by rejecting the license previously approved by the Federal Chamber for Lijo to take office in the highest court. The Court rendered without effect Agreement No. 1/2025 of the National Federal Chamber, emphasizing that the competence to grant exceptional licenses falls exclusively to the Court according to Article 11 of the Licensing Regime for Magistrates, Officials, and Employees of the National Justice.
The Court argued its decision based on the ruling "Daffis Niklison" from 1975, which establishes that the same person cannot hold two judicial positions simultaneously under different constitutional titles. In this case, Judge Niklison lost his previous appointment upon accepting a commission position. Therefore, the Court decided not to swear in Lijo and disavowed the Chamber's decision regarding it.
The resolution also clarified that Lijo will not be sworn in as long as he remains in his position as a full judge, which requires Senate approval. In this sense, it is highlighted that accepting a position in commission automatically implies resigning from the previous position. It was also emphasized that exceptional licenses, such as the one requested by Lijo, are not contemplated in the ordinary licensing regime and can only be granted by the Supreme Court under exceptional circumstances and with a reasoned resolution.
In an unexpected turn for the Government, the decision regarding the appointment of federal judge Ariel Lijo to the Supreme Court has been transferred to the Senate, as established by the Supreme Court.
