JUAN FRANCISCO ALONSO
EL UNIVERSAL

Even though he claimed that the judiciary is to ensure "the right to enjoyment, protection and disposal of property legally" owned by Venezuelans and foreigners in the country, the president of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), justice Omar Mora Díaz, warned that "the right to property is not absolute."

He declined making comments on the "recovery" of La Marqueseña ranch and the expropriation of Polar Companies silos, both located in southwestern Barinas state. He reminded that the two cases could be brought to him for analysis.

Q: Don't you think that recent seizures of ranches and industries provide plenty of ammunition for the people who claim that there is not rule of law in Venezuela?

A: No. On the contrary, I am convinced that Venezuela is going through a process of social, economic, political and institutional transformation under the principles of the Constitution. In this sense, the judiciary is a guarantor of the values and principles outlined in the Constitution. Undoubtedly, the Constitution provides for the right to private property and dictates that the judiciary shall ensure such right, but we also have to stress that universally private property is not deemed an absolute right.

Q: What do you mean?

A: It is not an absolute right, but it is a relative right. This relativity has to do with the general good, as private property has a social goal. Therefore, private property can be transferred to the public sector, for public use.

Q: But shouldn't a judge decide on such transfers? Can governors and mayors confiscate property too?

A: The steps for transferring private property to the public sector are set forth under the expropriation law. First, a decree of apportionment for public use has to be issued, either by a national, regional or local authority. Occupation can take place immediately thereafter, even though the legal phase has not been reached. Subsequently, there is a conciliatory phase, where the parties are to make efforts to reach an agreement on the price of the property. If an agreement is achieved, the issue ends there. Otherwise, the matter is brought to the court. An expropriation trial is aimed at determining the property value, for purposes of compensation.

Q: Then courts are entitled to intervene only when any of parties claims it has been adversely affected?

A: The judiciary has to intervene when there is contention. If there is an agreement, there is no reason for the judiciary to act.

Q: Aren't you concerned about the situation facing Santa Rita ranch -which is under seizure by members of a cooperative even though the Constitutional Court (of TSJ) has decided that the Land Institute (INTI) did not act in accordance with the law when it authorized the takeover of this plot of land?

A: I rather not make comments on any particular case. First, I have to check the rulings of the Constitutional Court and find whether there was failure to comply with such decisions. The parties are presenting biased versions of the facts.

Q: Do you ensure that court rulings -regardless of whom they may benefit or damage- are to be enforced?

A: One of the features of the rule of law is coerciveness, i.e., the logical possibility that the ruling is enforced even against the willingness of the party concerned. When a court issues an arrest warrant, this order is enforced even though the party affected does not want to comply with it. Therefore, the judiciary can use the public force to enforce an arrest warrant, if necessary. Police and military authorities have a duty to enforce the rulings issued by the judiciary. This is the same for rulings regarding property. We ensure that any decision issued here has to be observed by all the other branches of the judiciary, as it has been the case so far.

Translated by Maryflor Suárez R.