Source Embassy Tegucigalpa Tegucigalpa
Confidential Classification
SIPDIS
000645 CONFIDENTIAL TO / THOMAS L. SHANNON
FOR HAROLD KOH AND JOAN DONOGHUE FOR DAN RESTREPO
NSC EO 12958: DQ'd: 23/07/2019
TAGS: PGOV, KDEM, Kjus, TFH01, HO
SUBJECT: TFHO1: OPEN AND CLOSE: THE CASE OF STROKE IN HONDURAS
REF: 578 TEGUCIGALPA
Rated by: Ambassador Hugo Llorens, reason 1.4 (b and d)
1. (C) Summary: It seeks to clarify some legal and constitutional issues surrounding the forced departure, June 28 President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya. The prospect of the Embassy is no doubt that the military, the Supreme Court and Congress have conspired on June 28 in what was a coup against the illegal and unconstitutional executive branch, while accepting there may be a prima facie case that Zelaya may have committed illegal acts and may even have violated the Constitution. Also, no doubt, from our perspective, that the rise of Roberto Micheletti of power was illegitimate. However, it is also clear that the Constitution itself may be deficient in terms of providing clear procedures for dealing with alleged illegal acts by the President and to resolve conflicts between branches of government. End of summary.
2. (U) After the impeachment and ouster of President Zelaya of Honduras' armed forces on 28 June, the Embassy has consulted legal experts Honduran (can not find an absolutely impartial professional opinion in today's charged political atmosphere) and revised texts of the Constitution and laws of Honduras to develop a better understanding of the arguments used by supporters and opponents of the coup. -------------------------------
arguments advocates ------
Coup -------------------------
3. (SBU) Defenders of the coup of 28 June has offered a combination of the following arguments, often ambiguous, affirming their legality:
- Zelaya had violated the law (of course, but not proven);
- Zelaya resigned (an invention of course);
- Zelaya intends to extend its mandate (of course);
- Had he been allowed to continue with the opinion poll on constitutional reform on June 28, Zelaya had dissolved Congress day following and called for a Constituent Assembly (of course);
- Zelaya had to be expelled from the country to avoid bloodshed,
- Congress "by unanimity "(or in some versions a 123-5 vote) removed Zelaya (after the fact and under the cloak of secrecy), and
- Zelaya" automatically "ceased to be president now proposed to amend the constitutional prohibition on reelection president.
4. (C) In our opinion, none of the above arguments have substantive validity under the Constitution of Honduras. Some are directly false. Others are mere assumptions or ex-post rationalizations of a manifestly illegal act. Essentially :
- The military had no authority to remove the country Zelaya;
- Congress has no constitutional authority to impeach a President Honduras;
-- El Congreso y el Poder Judicial removieron a Zelaya basados en un precipitado, extrajurídico y secreto proceso de 48 horas, diseñado específicamente para tal fin;
- La supuesta carta de "renuncia" era una fabricación y ni siquiera fue la base para la acción del Congreso del 28 de junio; y
- La detención de Zelaya y su salida forzosa del país violaba múltiples garantías constitucionales incluida la prohibición de la expatriación, la presunción de inocencia y derecho al debido proceso.
-------------------------------------------
Juicio político bajo la Constitución de Honduras
-------------------------------------------
5. (U) In accordance with the Constitution of Honduras today, the President may be dismissed in circumstances of death, resignation or disability. Only the Supreme Court may determine that a President has been "disabled" on the basis of committing a crime.
6. (U) There is no explicit procedure for the development of impeachment in the Constitution of Honduras, 1982. Originally, 205-15 article stated that Congress had authority to determine whether there was "cause" against the President, but does not specify under what grounds and under what procedure.
Article 319-2 states that the Supreme Court "hear" cases officers or common crimes committed by senior officials at the determination of the existence of a cause by Congress. This is an impeachment process is very diffuse, with the participation of the other two branches of government, although no specific criteria and procedures. However, Article 205 was repealed in 2003, and the corresponding provision of Article 319 (now 313) was amended to provide that only the Supreme Court will hear "the proceedings initiated" against senior officials. Therefore, it seems that under the current constitution, the impeachment of a president or a government official is an entirely legal.
7. (U) Respected legal opinions confirm that the removal of a president is a judicial matter. According to a book written in 2006 by the respected jurist Enrique Flores Valeriano - Father Enrique Flores Lanza, Minister of the Presidency of Zelaya - Article 112 of the Constitutional Court Act states that if a government official is in violation of the Constitution, that person should be removed from office immediately to be the highest authority in matters of constitutionality the Supreme Court.
8. (U) Many legal experts also have confirmed that the process of Honduras to challenge a President or other senior official is a judicial procedure.
They claim that under Honduran law, the process consists in the formalization of criminal charges filed by the Attorney General against the defendant before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may accept or reject these charges. If the Court decides to act, shall appoint a judge or panel of judges of the Supreme Court to investigate the matter and monitor the process. The judicial process should be open and transparent and the accused would be given full right of self-defense. If convicted on impeachment, judges have the authority to remove the President or senior official. Once the President is removed, the primary constitutional succession. In this case, if a president is legally charged, convicted and removed from office, his successor is the vice president or what is called the Presidential Appointee. In the current situation in Honduras, as Vice President Elvin Santos, resigned last December to become the presidential candidate of the Liberal Party, the successor to President Zelaya would be the Congress President Roberto Micheletti. Unfortunately, the President never tried, or convicted, or was legally removed from his post to allow a legal succession took place. -----------------------------
The legal case against Zelaya
------------ -----------------
9. Opponents (C) of claim Zelaya it violated the Constitution for many reasons, some of which appear valid, while others do not:
- Refusing to submit a budget to Congress: The Constitution is clear in establishing that the Executive shall submit a budget proposal to Congress September 15 each year (Art. 367) that Congress will approve the budget (art. 366) and any obligation or payment may be made except on the basis of an approved budget (art. 364);
- Refuse to funding to Congress: Section 212 states that quarterly Treasury allocated funds for the operation of Congress;
- The proposal for a constitutional referendum Illegal: The Constitution may be amended by two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions (art. 373 and 375), a constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution, as Zelaya promoted, is therefore unconstitutional, but it is not clear that the proposal for a constituent assembly violates the Constitution, except that any changes resulting from that meeting would be invalid;
- Challenging the decision of a competent court: Zelaya insisted on going ahead with opinion polls for constitutional reform after that both the court of first instance and appeals court ordered the suspension of such efforts; however, although he had the clear intention to proceed with the survey, in fact never materialized;
- Propose the amendment of sections irreformable: Since the proposed Constituent Assembly would Zelaya unlimited powers to rewrite the Constitution, was violated Article 374, which provides that certain items are stone. However, once again Zelaya not really tried to change these items, only presumed that he intended;
- fired the head of the armed forces: the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled June 25 that Zelaya was violation of the Constitution to dismiss the Chief of Defence Vasquez Velasquez, the Constitution (art. 280) provides that the President may freely appoint or remove the head of the Armed Forces, but the Court ruled that, as Zelaya dismissed him for refusing to carry out a survey that the Court had ruled illegal The dismissal was illegal.
10. (C) Notwithstanding that a case might well have been filed against Zelaya by several previous constitutional violations alleged were never public and official analysis of the evidence or any semblance of due process.
----------------------- --------------------
Article 239 ---
11. (U) Article 239, which are coup supporters after citing the facts to justify the removal of Zelaya (which is not mentioned in the voluminous court record against Zelaya) provides that any official who proposes to reform the constitutional prohibition against reelection of the President shall forthwith cease to perform their functions and no right to hold public office for 10 years. The coup supporters have said that Zelaya therefore automatically ceased to be president when he proposed a constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution.
12. The analysis indicates that the argument revolves around Article 239 is flawed for many reasons:
- Although the general assumption the reason is that Zelaya to try to convene a constituent assembly was to modify the constitution to allow re-election, we are not aware of that public demonstrations;
- Article 239 does not state who determines whether a violation or how, but it is reasonable assume that it overrides other guarantees of due process and presumption of innocence;
- Article 94 provides that no penalty shall be imposed without the accused has been heard and sentenced by a competent court;
- Many other Honduran officials, including other presidents, the first elected government since the 1982 Constitution in force, have proposed allowing presidential reelection, and never saw the automatic removal from office as a result.
13. (C) This argument also implies that the very Micheletti should be forced to resign against the logic of Article 239 because as President of the Congress proceeded to debate the legislation to take a fourth ballot ("Fourth Urn") in the November election to seek voter approval for a constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution. Any member of Congress who discussed the proposal should be separated from the post, and the National Party's presidential candidate, Joe Wolf, who supported the idea, should be disqualified from holding public office for 10 years.
--------------------------------------------- -
Withdrawal forced by the military was clearly illegal ------------------------------------------
--- -
14. (C) Regardless of the merits of the alleged constitutional violations Zelaya, shows even a cursory glance that his removal by military means was illegal, and even the strongest supporters of the coup have been unable to formulate convincing arguments to save the intellectual chasm between "Zelaya broke the law" to "therefore, was taken to Costa Rica by the military without trial."
- Although the coup supporters argue that the Court issued an arrest warrant for disobeying Zelaya order to abandon the opinion poll, the order was issued days later and was aimed at his arrest and appearance before the competent authority, not his expulsion from Honduras;
- Even if the Court had ordered that Zelaya was ejected the country, this order would be unconstitutional. Article 81 provides that all Hondurans are entitled to remain in the country, subject to certain exceptions set out in Article 187, which can be invoked only by the President with the consent of the Council of Ministers Article 102 Honduras states that no expatriate may be;
- The Armed Forces are not competent to execute court orders. Originally, Article 272 stated that the armed forces had the responsibility to "keep the peace, public order, order and command of the Constitution", but this text was abolished in 1998 under the current text, only the police authorized to maintain law and execute court orders (section 293);
- The count of kidnapping by the military Zelaya was never legally states that "presented" with an order, the soldiers shot their way in and essentially locks kidnapped President.
15. (U), the leading legal adviser to the Armed Forces, Col. Herbert Bayard Ines, acknowledged in an interview published in the Honduran press on 5 July that the military Honduras had violated the law in the removal of Zelaya of the country. That same day it was reported that the Public Ministry was investigating the actions of the armed forces in the arrest and deportation of Zelaya on 28 June and the Supreme Court had asked the military to explain the circumstances that led to his forced exile.
16. (C) As reported in the reftel (telegram of reference), the legal adviser of the Supreme Court Poloff said that at least some judges of the Court considered Zelaya's arrest and deportation by the military as illegal. ------------------------------------------
Congress had no authority to ------------------------------------------
depose Zelaya
17. (C) As explained above, the amended Constitution in 2003 appears to give sole authority for the removal of a chairman of the Judiciary. Some media have reported that the action of Congress on June 28 was the acceptance of the resignation of Zelaya, on the basis of a false resignation letter dated June 25 that emerged after the coup. However, the June 28 congressional resolution makes no mention of the letter, and says Congress accepts resignation of Zelaya. It says Congress "Disapprove" the conduct of Zelaya, so that "separates" the office of President - a constitutional authority that Congress has not. Moreover, a source of leadership in Congress told us there was no quorum when the resolution was adopted, which invalidates it. There was no recorded vote, not a count of "yes" and "noes."
18. (C) In short, for a constitutional succession Micheletti Zelaya to produce would be required to meet one of the following conditions: Disclaimer
Zelaya, his death or permanent medical disability (as determined by the judicial authorities and medical ) or as indicated above, the formal criminal conviction y consecuente destitución del cargo. En ausencia de cualquiera de estas condiciones el Congreso carecía de autoridad legal para remover a Zelaya; las acciones del 28 de junio sólo pueden ser consideradas como un golpe de Estado por el Poder Legislativo, con el apoyo de la rama judicial y los militares, contra el Poder Ejecutivo. Cabe mencionar que, aunque la resolución adoptada en junio 28 se refiere solamente a Zelaya, su efecto era eliminar el Poder Ejecutivo completo. Ambas acciones superan claramente la autoridad del Congreso.
-------
Comentario
19. (C) El análisis de la Constitución arroja luz sobre los acontecimientos del 28 de junio. El establishment hondureño se enfrentó a un dilema: unanimidad casi absoluta between state institutions and the political class that Zelaya had abused their powers in violation of the Constitution, but with some ambiguity about what to do about it.
Given this lack of clarity, the military and / or who ordered the coup were given to the known, the manner in which the presidents of Honduras have been dismissed in the past: a false resignation letter and a ticket to a neighboring country. Regardless of the merits of the case against Zelaya, his expulsion by the military was clearly illegal and Micheletti's rise as "acting president" completely illegitimate;
20. (C) However, the same constitutional uncertainty that led to the class policy dilemma can provide the seeds for a solution. The most ardent supporters of the coup laws have failed to explain the intellectual leap from the arguments about the alleged crimes Zelaya to justify how such complaints were dragged out of his bed at night and carried on a plane to Costa Rica. That the Attorney General and the Supreme Court now put into question the legality of that final step can provide an outlet for the two opposite sides in the current dispute. End of comment. Destination
LLORENS
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB
OF RUEHTG # 0645/01 2050023 ZNY CCCCC
ZZH
O 240023Z JUL 09 FM AMEMBASSY TEGUCIGALPA
TO RUEHC / SecState WASHDC
IMMEDIATE 0237 INFO RUEHZA / WHA CENTRAL AMERICAN COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHCV / AMEMBASSY CARACAS 0735
IMMEDIATE RHEHAAA / THE WHITE HOUSE IMMEDIATE WASHDC
RUEAIIA / CIA WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEFDIA / DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEIDN / DNI WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA / NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUMIAAA / USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL IMMEDIATE
Confidential Classification
SIPDIS
000645 CONFIDENTIAL TO / THOMAS L. SHANNON
FOR HAROLD KOH AND JOAN DONOGHUE FOR DAN RESTREPO
NSC EO 12958: DQ'd: 23/07/2019
TAGS: PGOV, KDEM, Kjus, TFH01, HO
SUBJECT: TFHO1: OPEN AND CLOSE: THE CASE OF STROKE IN HONDURAS
REF: 578 TEGUCIGALPA
Rated by: Ambassador Hugo Llorens, reason 1.4 (b and d)
1. (C) Summary: It seeks to clarify some legal and constitutional issues surrounding the forced departure, June 28 President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya. The prospect of the Embassy is no doubt that the military, the Supreme Court and Congress have conspired on June 28 in what was a coup against the illegal and unconstitutional executive branch, while accepting there may be a prima facie case that Zelaya may have committed illegal acts and may even have violated the Constitution. Also, no doubt, from our perspective, that the rise of Roberto Micheletti of power was illegitimate. However, it is also clear that the Constitution itself may be deficient in terms of providing clear procedures for dealing with alleged illegal acts by the President and to resolve conflicts between branches of government. End of summary.
2. (U) After the impeachment and ouster of President Zelaya of Honduras' armed forces on 28 June, the Embassy has consulted legal experts Honduran (can not find an absolutely impartial professional opinion in today's charged political atmosphere) and revised texts of the Constitution and laws of Honduras to develop a better understanding of the arguments used by supporters and opponents of the coup. -------------------------------
arguments advocates ------
Coup -------------------------
3. (SBU) Defenders of the coup of 28 June has offered a combination of the following arguments, often ambiguous, affirming their legality:
- Zelaya had violated the law (of course, but not proven);
- Zelaya resigned (an invention of course);
- Zelaya intends to extend its mandate (of course);
- Had he been allowed to continue with the opinion poll on constitutional reform on June 28, Zelaya had dissolved Congress day following and called for a Constituent Assembly (of course);
- Zelaya had to be expelled from the country to avoid bloodshed,
- Congress "by unanimity "(or in some versions a 123-5 vote) removed Zelaya (after the fact and under the cloak of secrecy), and
- Zelaya" automatically "ceased to be president now proposed to amend the constitutional prohibition on reelection president.
4. (C) In our opinion, none of the above arguments have substantive validity under the Constitution of Honduras. Some are directly false. Others are mere assumptions or ex-post rationalizations of a manifestly illegal act. Essentially :
- The military had no authority to remove the country Zelaya;
- Congress has no constitutional authority to impeach a President Honduras;
-- El Congreso y el Poder Judicial removieron a Zelaya basados en un precipitado, extrajurídico y secreto proceso de 48 horas, diseñado específicamente para tal fin;
- La supuesta carta de "renuncia" era una fabricación y ni siquiera fue la base para la acción del Congreso del 28 de junio; y
- La detención de Zelaya y su salida forzosa del país violaba múltiples garantías constitucionales incluida la prohibición de la expatriación, la presunción de inocencia y derecho al debido proceso.
-------------------------------------------
Juicio político bajo la Constitución de Honduras
-------------------------------------------
5. (U) In accordance with the Constitution of Honduras today, the President may be dismissed in circumstances of death, resignation or disability. Only the Supreme Court may determine that a President has been "disabled" on the basis of committing a crime.
6. (U) There is no explicit procedure for the development of impeachment in the Constitution of Honduras, 1982. Originally, 205-15 article stated that Congress had authority to determine whether there was "cause" against the President, but does not specify under what grounds and under what procedure.
Article 319-2 states that the Supreme Court "hear" cases officers or common crimes committed by senior officials at the determination of the existence of a cause by Congress. This is an impeachment process is very diffuse, with the participation of the other two branches of government, although no specific criteria and procedures. However, Article 205 was repealed in 2003, and the corresponding provision of Article 319 (now 313) was amended to provide that only the Supreme Court will hear "the proceedings initiated" against senior officials. Therefore, it seems that under the current constitution, the impeachment of a president or a government official is an entirely legal.
7. (U) Respected legal opinions confirm that the removal of a president is a judicial matter. According to a book written in 2006 by the respected jurist Enrique Flores Valeriano - Father Enrique Flores Lanza, Minister of the Presidency of Zelaya - Article 112 of the Constitutional Court Act states that if a government official is in violation of the Constitution, that person should be removed from office immediately to be the highest authority in matters of constitutionality the Supreme Court.
8. (U) Many legal experts also have confirmed that the process of Honduras to challenge a President or other senior official is a judicial procedure.
They claim that under Honduran law, the process consists in the formalization of criminal charges filed by the Attorney General against the defendant before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may accept or reject these charges. If the Court decides to act, shall appoint a judge or panel of judges of the Supreme Court to investigate the matter and monitor the process. The judicial process should be open and transparent and the accused would be given full right of self-defense. If convicted on impeachment, judges have the authority to remove the President or senior official. Once the President is removed, the primary constitutional succession. In this case, if a president is legally charged, convicted and removed from office, his successor is the vice president or what is called the Presidential Appointee. In the current situation in Honduras, as Vice President Elvin Santos, resigned last December to become the presidential candidate of the Liberal Party, the successor to President Zelaya would be the Congress President Roberto Micheletti. Unfortunately, the President never tried, or convicted, or was legally removed from his post to allow a legal succession took place. -----------------------------
The legal case against Zelaya
------------ -----------------
9. Opponents (C) of claim Zelaya it violated the Constitution for many reasons, some of which appear valid, while others do not:
- Refusing to submit a budget to Congress: The Constitution is clear in establishing that the Executive shall submit a budget proposal to Congress September 15 each year (Art. 367) that Congress will approve the budget (art. 366) and any obligation or payment may be made except on the basis of an approved budget (art. 364);
- Refuse to funding to Congress: Section 212 states that quarterly Treasury allocated funds for the operation of Congress;
- The proposal for a constitutional referendum Illegal: The Constitution may be amended by two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions (art. 373 and 375), a constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution, as Zelaya promoted, is therefore unconstitutional, but it is not clear that the proposal for a constituent assembly violates the Constitution, except that any changes resulting from that meeting would be invalid;
- Challenging the decision of a competent court: Zelaya insisted on going ahead with opinion polls for constitutional reform after that both the court of first instance and appeals court ordered the suspension of such efforts; however, although he had the clear intention to proceed with the survey, in fact never materialized;
- Propose the amendment of sections irreformable: Since the proposed Constituent Assembly would Zelaya unlimited powers to rewrite the Constitution, was violated Article 374, which provides that certain items are stone. However, once again Zelaya not really tried to change these items, only presumed that he intended;
- fired the head of the armed forces: the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled June 25 that Zelaya was violation of the Constitution to dismiss the Chief of Defence Vasquez Velasquez, the Constitution (art. 280) provides that the President may freely appoint or remove the head of the Armed Forces, but the Court ruled that, as Zelaya dismissed him for refusing to carry out a survey that the Court had ruled illegal The dismissal was illegal.
10. (C) Notwithstanding that a case might well have been filed against Zelaya by several previous constitutional violations alleged were never public and official analysis of the evidence or any semblance of due process.
----------------------- --------------------
Article 239 ---
11. (U) Article 239, which are coup supporters after citing the facts to justify the removal of Zelaya (which is not mentioned in the voluminous court record against Zelaya) provides that any official who proposes to reform the constitutional prohibition against reelection of the President shall forthwith cease to perform their functions and no right to hold public office for 10 years. The coup supporters have said that Zelaya therefore automatically ceased to be president when he proposed a constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution.
12. The analysis indicates that the argument revolves around Article 239 is flawed for many reasons:
- Although the general assumption the reason is that Zelaya to try to convene a constituent assembly was to modify the constitution to allow re-election, we are not aware of that public demonstrations;
- Article 239 does not state who determines whether a violation or how, but it is reasonable assume that it overrides other guarantees of due process and presumption of innocence;
- Article 94 provides that no penalty shall be imposed without the accused has been heard and sentenced by a competent court;
- Many other Honduran officials, including other presidents, the first elected government since the 1982 Constitution in force, have proposed allowing presidential reelection, and never saw the automatic removal from office as a result.
13. (C) This argument also implies that the very Micheletti should be forced to resign against the logic of Article 239 because as President of the Congress proceeded to debate the legislation to take a fourth ballot ("Fourth Urn") in the November election to seek voter approval for a constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution. Any member of Congress who discussed the proposal should be separated from the post, and the National Party's presidential candidate, Joe Wolf, who supported the idea, should be disqualified from holding public office for 10 years.
--------------------------------------------- -
Withdrawal forced by the military was clearly illegal ------------------------------------------
--- -
14. (C) Regardless of the merits of the alleged constitutional violations Zelaya, shows even a cursory glance that his removal by military means was illegal, and even the strongest supporters of the coup have been unable to formulate convincing arguments to save the intellectual chasm between "Zelaya broke the law" to "therefore, was taken to Costa Rica by the military without trial."
- Although the coup supporters argue that the Court issued an arrest warrant for disobeying Zelaya order to abandon the opinion poll, the order was issued days later and was aimed at his arrest and appearance before the competent authority, not his expulsion from Honduras;
- Even if the Court had ordered that Zelaya was ejected the country, this order would be unconstitutional. Article 81 provides that all Hondurans are entitled to remain in the country, subject to certain exceptions set out in Article 187, which can be invoked only by the President with the consent of the Council of Ministers Article 102 Honduras states that no expatriate may be;
- The Armed Forces are not competent to execute court orders. Originally, Article 272 stated that the armed forces had the responsibility to "keep the peace, public order, order and command of the Constitution", but this text was abolished in 1998 under the current text, only the police authorized to maintain law and execute court orders (section 293);
- The count of kidnapping by the military Zelaya was never legally states that "presented" with an order, the soldiers shot their way in and essentially locks kidnapped President.
15. (U), the leading legal adviser to the Armed Forces, Col. Herbert Bayard Ines, acknowledged in an interview published in the Honduran press on 5 July that the military Honduras had violated the law in the removal of Zelaya of the country. That same day it was reported that the Public Ministry was investigating the actions of the armed forces in the arrest and deportation of Zelaya on 28 June and the Supreme Court had asked the military to explain the circumstances that led to his forced exile.
16. (C) As reported in the reftel (telegram of reference), the legal adviser of the Supreme Court Poloff said that at least some judges of the Court considered Zelaya's arrest and deportation by the military as illegal. ------------------------------------------
Congress had no authority to ------------------------------------------
depose Zelaya
17. (C) As explained above, the amended Constitution in 2003 appears to give sole authority for the removal of a chairman of the Judiciary. Some media have reported that the action of Congress on June 28 was the acceptance of the resignation of Zelaya, on the basis of a false resignation letter dated June 25 that emerged after the coup. However, the June 28 congressional resolution makes no mention of the letter, and says Congress accepts resignation of Zelaya. It says Congress "Disapprove" the conduct of Zelaya, so that "separates" the office of President - a constitutional authority that Congress has not. Moreover, a source of leadership in Congress told us there was no quorum when the resolution was adopted, which invalidates it. There was no recorded vote, not a count of "yes" and "noes."
18. (C) In short, for a constitutional succession Micheletti Zelaya to produce would be required to meet one of the following conditions: Disclaimer
Zelaya, his death or permanent medical disability (as determined by the judicial authorities and medical ) or as indicated above, the formal criminal conviction y consecuente destitución del cargo. En ausencia de cualquiera de estas condiciones el Congreso carecía de autoridad legal para remover a Zelaya; las acciones del 28 de junio sólo pueden ser consideradas como un golpe de Estado por el Poder Legislativo, con el apoyo de la rama judicial y los militares, contra el Poder Ejecutivo. Cabe mencionar que, aunque la resolución adoptada en junio 28 se refiere solamente a Zelaya, su efecto era eliminar el Poder Ejecutivo completo. Ambas acciones superan claramente la autoridad del Congreso.
-------
Comentario
19. (C) El análisis de la Constitución arroja luz sobre los acontecimientos del 28 de junio. El establishment hondureño se enfrentó a un dilema: unanimidad casi absoluta between state institutions and the political class that Zelaya had abused their powers in violation of the Constitution, but with some ambiguity about what to do about it.
Given this lack of clarity, the military and / or who ordered the coup were given to the known, the manner in which the presidents of Honduras have been dismissed in the past: a false resignation letter and a ticket to a neighboring country. Regardless of the merits of the case against Zelaya, his expulsion by the military was clearly illegal and Micheletti's rise as "acting president" completely illegitimate;
20. (C) However, the same constitutional uncertainty that led to the class policy dilemma can provide the seeds for a solution. The most ardent supporters of the coup laws have failed to explain the intellectual leap from the arguments about the alleged crimes Zelaya to justify how such complaints were dragged out of his bed at night and carried on a plane to Costa Rica. That the Attorney General and the Supreme Court now put into question the legality of that final step can provide an outlet for the two opposite sides in the current dispute. End of comment. Destination
LLORENS
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB
OF RUEHTG # 0645/01 2050023 ZNY CCCCC
ZZH
O 240023Z JUL 09 FM AMEMBASSY TEGUCIGALPA
TO RUEHC / SecState WASHDC
IMMEDIATE 0237 INFO RUEHZA / WHA CENTRAL AMERICAN COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHCV / AMEMBASSY CARACAS 0735
IMMEDIATE RHEHAAA / THE WHITE HOUSE IMMEDIATE WASHDC
RUEAIIA / CIA WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEFDIA / DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEIDN / DNI WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA / NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUMIAAA / USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL IMMEDIATE
