Attentive to the lush production depublicaciones wrong by the North Journal, The Directorate of Bosquesnuevamente requires the use of Right to Reply, should aclararnecesariamente each misinformation and tendentious daily sedifunde .
Before punctuating debidaaclaración recalled that the right to reply, is "the action ejerciciode why a personapuede express their disagreement with the issuance of a message for sucontenido or form. Is a right that is practiced in the civilized relacionesinterpersonales, especially when the person involved in elmensaje, is not this and feel aggrieved. There is a moral duty decomunicar given the opportunity to express their dissent. "
Under this, it is necessary dejarsentado, that this right of reply, exercised On Monday March 21 last, in response to the daily publication of North of Sunday March 20, by partedel production minister, Enrique Orban, on your behalf ofall governing body was not respected by the North Journal, and that inthe same note, within the right of reply, he introduced his clear position, entitled "Production Notes", making burdatendenciosidad intervention, which has been recurrent in recent days.
That said, our deldía denied point by point :
said the North Journal:
"inrespect point 13, accusing the failure to collect fines representing 100millones pesos ..."
Answer: During gestiónllevada out by the arborist, Mario Bejarano, by the Secretariat Natural deRecursos, it produced two short instruments plazoresultaron very controversial in its implementation , Decree No. 216/09, (aúnvigente) and Forest Certificate (not applicable) .-
delDiario Questioning North, referred promptly to the notice and publication in that medium duranteel 2009, when Mr. Mario Bejarano proclaimed a fabulous sum of $ 100,000,000, for the collection of fines Through the Directorate of Forests . It was based on elDecreto N º 216/09, which came into effect from March 2009, giving it retroactive effect and may be used at the time of detection dela satellite image, regardless of momentode the commission of the offense.
worth noting also queel Decree 216/09, establishing fines ranging from $ 2,950 to $ 10,000 porcada been removed.
Accordingly, the Natural Resources anteriorSecretario (Bejarano), ordered that the decree, seaplicara all cases that come before the Directorate deBosques, in which offenders were not yet reported, despite queen almost all cases the offenses were committed with anterioridada the effective date of the decree said. Thus, Mr. Bejarano automatically multiplied the many of you who threw the imágenessatelitales, for the maximum amount that ordered the new decree, ($ 10,000), fijandode mathematically the sum to be paid by the offender allegedly prior to being notified .-
Obviously, the sum of these accounts queresultaba reached such astronomical sums, and imagined yfantasiosos, there arises the large sum of $ 100,000,000, of which North .- daily sepregunta
Another measure porBejarano ordered was double the previous record for the duration of decreto216/09, or to be understood, "replace" new ones with the sanciónprevista in the new decree, in those cases where supuestosinfractores had not yet been reported, thus, the new leyvigente applied retroactively.
That operation, apartede retroactively apply the decree, meant "prejudgment" administration because all ocurríacuando just starting the record condemning without analyzing the situation the same or expect to complete the process to reach the final for the issuance of correspondienteResolución .-
seoriginaran This led to various poses legal by managed, arguing on the one hand, the "Principle deIrretroactividad of law", and secondly, the excess void punibilidadsolicitando administrative act under ladesproporcionalidad of the penalty, as there were different situations funds announced quetornaron illusory, for example, that some presentabansus permits, or that there was no native forest on the property, etc., but in cases lamayoría , reality and the evidence indicated that INFRACCIONESFUERON committed before OF ENTRY TERM OF DECREE No. 216/09, was accepted as the standard application of force at the time of the offense, not ladetección .- This explains clearly that queel amount calculating Bejarano up, it sounded very convenient for laprensa, and it was a way to add the accreditation of an amount unreal, but resultabamuy good management. That is the truth about the $ 100,000,000, which nuncafueron such, and therefore could never be recovered. (The year 2009 was the demenor income from fines to the Department of Forests, as it charged $ 700,000) .-
hope to have aclaradola doubt the Journal Editorial north, fines of $ 100,000,000, leaving their own conclusion of who is or was the "bad lapelícula" .-
We refer to segundoinstrumento created by Bejarano, Monte Native Certificate by Order No. 1671-1609, prompting criticism Clerks ofall the province, through judicial pose lacausa Padilla Echeverry "WRITE THE CHACO COLLEGE C / EXECUTIVE OF THE PROV. THE CHACO Y / OPROVINCIA CHACO S / ACTION AMPARO "Expte. No. 888/09 that was processed in the House Contentious Administrative .
This certificate each vezque a person wanted to sell a field, should apply to the Directorate deBosques this certificate to be presented to the clerk prior to laescritura. Thus, the escribanosdebían suspend the scriptures, until the previous Forest Management, issued the certificate, but as there were no records of offenders, the measure was unfeasible because the delay caused in the trámitesnotariales, since Forest management did not have that information, unless to conduct thorough investigations, file by file, Anopore year, etc., which inevitably caused the cessation of all activitieslisted that came off of such transactions .-
In the next section, setranscriben the rules governing the application of the laws to serexplicativos on the irregularities committed by Mr. Forest Bejarano inits previous administration.
1. DATE OF FROM A TO WHICH BEGINS A RULE a law and retroactivity of THE LAW:
temporary Term of Decree No. 216/09 . Art. 2 of the Laws Civilestablece clear that in cases where time is not determined " seránobligatorias after eight days of their official publication . This principle applies not only to the laws in the formal sense, but for all rule does not establish a specific date force input.
addition, Article 3 of the Civil Code clearly states that ' Lasley has no retroactive effect, whether or not public policy, salvodisposición otherwise. Retroactivity established by law in any casopodrá affect rights protected by constitutional guarantees . "
The principle of retroactivity means that the laws rigenpara the future and, therefore, a new law can not return to sold out situacioneso legal relations, or legal actions already taken. Loshechos past who have exhausted all their own virtuality can not seralcanzados by the new law, the notion of legal consumption, and the affected sise, retroactivity would be incurred .-
In this case, the Decree No. 216/09 was published in Official elBoletín of the province of Chaco, February 23, 2009, noestableciéndose any specific date of entry into force. Therefore, temporary suaplicación started from the eighth day after supublicación in the official gazette of the province of Chaco, this is the March 8, 2009. Until then, the decree was in force ILO standard N º 817/05.
There is a fundamental principle of criminal law " nullumcrimen iuditio ac sine lege" , this requires that the legal existence penalde the contrary, necessarily dependent on a statute that the set. The procedure followed Administration to implement the sanctions, lasgarantías must respect the provisions of Article 18 of the Constitution (Dromi, José Roberto, "Administrative Criminal Law", Volume I, Editorial Astrea, Buenos Aires, 1992 , p. 125).
also the High Court has understood that the configuration of undelito or infringement by slight, and its repression, is subject to the core task of the legislature and is beyond the orbit of the facultadesejecutivas. Nobody is forced to do what the law does not require private or it does not prohibit foulbrood (article 19 of the Constitution ). Hence arises the need for a law to send or prohibits a thing, lest a person can incurred at fault for having done or omitted to act endeterminado sense. And it must be, at the same time, a sanciónlegal to repress the breach so that person should be condemned portal made (Article 18 of the Constitution ).
2. OF THE PROPORTION OF THE PUNISHMENT:
the proportionality of the sanction. Another of the principles of administrative penalty has not sidoobservado in the implementation of the fine is that it blocks excess puniciónpor unreasonable and disproportionate amount of the penalty.
The case law and doctrine developed elconcepto of "excessive punishment" as grounds for revocation of administrative acts involving an act so unreasonable, that is a direct affront to losartículos 28 and 33 of the Constitution (Marienhoff, Michael S., "excesssilicone of punishment as invalidating the legal act of public law" Law 1989-E-963) .- In the case of Decree 216/09, and indiscriminate amount suaplicación referred by him superior in almost Disable ALL cases, besides being irrelevant, the exorbitant fine imposed eraevidente. Only enough to see that the amount was about ten times superioral market value of the property in question, making unviable suaplicación, and therefore its recovery.
