The Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay decided to reject the unconstitutionality action filed by former senator Kattya González, who sought to overturn her removal from office in the Senate. The ruling confirms the validity of the process that led to the parliamentarian's expulsion, ending one of the main legal battles she waged to return to the upper house.
During the trial, the majority of justices held that the Senate's internal resolution, which Kattya claimed was mandatory for the loss of mandate, was not in effect under the conditions she cited and therefore could not invalidate the procedure adopted. The court also found that the qualified majority demanded by the former senator was not required for the decision that led to her removal.
Justice Víctor Ríos, who voted in the minority, argued that the Senate's internal rules, which required 30 votes for the loss of mandate, were in force and should have been respected, particularly regarding deadlines and the right to a defense. In his view, the rejection of these rules left the decision subject to the discretion of the parliamentary majority, which runs counter to due process guarantees.
Senator Ignacio Iramain sharply criticized the Court's decision. In a speech before the Senate, he stated that the case reveals, in his assessment, a subordination of the Judiciary to political power, representing a lack of independence and a regression to an authoritarian system similar to Alfredo Stroessner's dictatorship, albeit "more sugar-coated" — a characterization he himself used to describe what he considers democratic backsliding. Iramain quoted Voltaire to warn that when power decides first and justifies afterward, justice becomes an instrument of persecution. He questioned whether a parliamentary majority can expel an elected representative without respecting due process and whether political disagreements can be turned into grounds for constitutional elimination.
Furthermore, the senator invoked Montesquieu to defend the need for limits on the exercise of power and criticized the Court for declaring itself incompetent to hear the case, which, in his view, would mean creating zones of power where the Constitution does not apply, allowing the majority to act as judge, party, and executioner.
On the other hand, Senator Celeste Amarilla accused Court justices of having been politically pressured — an allegation that, according to her, included orders from former president Horacio Cartes — to act in dereliction of duty and support the decision against Kattya González. This accusation, made without presentation of evidence, has not been independently corroborated. She also expressed disappointment over the change in vote by Justice Manuel Ramírez Candia Martínez Simón, who had initially positioned himself in favor of the former senator, according to the senator's allegation, which likewise lacks independent confirmation.
In contrast, Senator Dionisio Amarilla celebrated the Court's verdict, stating that the institutions acted correctly and that the decision must be respected. He recommended that Kattya González reach out to the public in an attempt to return to the Senate, noting that politics demands the ability to coexist and show respect, criticizing what he called the arrogant attitude of his former colleague.
The debate surrounding the Kattya González case exposes deep tensions over the separation of powers in Paraguay, respect for constitutional guarantees, and the role of the Judiciary in relation to the Legislature. While opponents denounce possible political persecution and democratic backsliding, supporters of the process maintain that the institutions operated within the bounds of the law.