On February 26, 2025, just days after the conclusion of extraordinary congressional sessions and shortly before the beginning of ordinary sessions, the Executive Branch issued Decree 137/2025, appointing Manuel García-Mansilla and Ariel Lijo as interim justices on Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice. The following day, the Supreme Court administered the oath of office to García-Mansilla, while the appointment of Judge Lijo remains pending, as he has requested a leave of absence from his current judicial position, a matter still under review by the Court.
Given the gravity of this institutional crisis, the Fundación Poder Ciudadano, ACIJ, INECIP, and the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) have jointly filed an amparo action seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of these appointments, alongside a request for precautionary measures to suspend their effects until a final resolution is reached.
The lawsuit asserts that the Executive Branch departed from constitutional procedure by failing to demonstrate the existence of an exceptional circumstance that would prevent the proper administration of justice. In fact, the Supreme Court has functioned with fewer members in the past. In February, with only three justices, it issued 802 rulings. Furthermore, the Senate was not prevented from holding sessions, as it convened during both ordinary and extraordinary periods. The use of interim appointments cannot be employed as a means to circumvent the democratic consensus required by the Constitution for the composition of the Court.
Through this action, the Executive Branch has placed judicial independence at grave risk. By circumventing the two-thirds Senate majority required for such appointments, the justices in question risk being perceived as instruments of the President rather than impartial members of the judiciary. Moreover, the precarious nature of their appointments—subject to revocation by the Senate—creates an incentive for them to issue rulings that align with or avoid opposition from legislative factions. Stability in judicial office is the primary safeguard for ensuring independent decision-making. Without stability, there is neither independence nor impartiality.
The appointment of Supreme Court justices must follow a selection process that guarantees transparency, public participation, and respect for the separation of powers. Any appointment made outside the constitutionally established procedure endangers the very foundation of the rule of law. Our organizations reaffirm their unwavering commitment to defending judicial independence and the strict observance of the National Constitution—fundamental pillars of any democracy. We urge the Senate and the Judiciary, within their respective spheres of competence, to reverse this decision. Failure to do so would open a dangerous precedent for our Republic, one that may prove difficult to close in the future.
Argentine Constitution