More condemnation from lawyers, Amnesty International and other entities against the appointment by decree of Lijo and García-Mansilla in the Court

The Argentine Federation of Bar Associations (FACA), the Civil Association for Equality and Justice (ACIJ), Amnesty International, the Bar Association of CABA, and the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), among other entities, also came out to criticize presidential decree 137 that appointed Ariel Lijo and Manuel García-Mansilla to the Court.

For its part, the Public Bar Association of CABA, chaired by former judge Ricardo Gil Lavedra, warned that "the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation by decree No. 135/2025 seriously compromises judicial independence and puts public confidence in the highest court in the country at risk."

Beyond the debate on the scope of the presidential power "established in article 99, paragraph 19 of the National Constitution, it is indisputable that this is an exceptional power and its interpretation is restrictive. The appointment of judges of the Court by decree cannot be justified under the pretext of a delay in the regular process."

"Our Constitution requires that Supreme Court judges be appointed through a complex process involving both the Executive Branch and the Senate, requiring a two-thirds majority for the approval (or not) of the candidates' nominations. A provisionally appointed judge is in a fragile situation , which could condition his performance, since his permanence in office depends on the will of the political powers," the college added in that statement.

The legitimacy of the Court "lies not only in the suitability of its members, but also in compliance with the mechanisms established for their appointment . These procedures are not mere formalities, but are fundamental pillars for safeguarding judicial independence and consolidating the credibility of the institutions," added Gil Lavedra's college.

In a statement, FACA stated that “the use of the powers provided for in article 99, paragraph 19 of the National Constitution to proceed with the appointments in question implies the exercise of an extraordinary act of government used in a tangential manner –although legal- due to the lack of institutional consensus of full knowledge in the constitutional body provided for the approval of the documents duly submitted for consideration.”

The proposal "known by the aforementioned Decree violates national and international regulations on respect for gender in the integration of government bodies such as the Judiciary; the absence of a woman's nomination to the highest court of justice in the Nation will place our Argentine Republic in the opaque list of Higher Courts in Ibero-America that do not include female judges, a fact that is impossible for the Executive Branch to justify."

On the other hand, more than 30 civil society organizations published a statement today warning about the “serious impact on judicial independence” caused by the Executive Branch's decision to appoint by decree judges Manuel García Mansilla and Ariel Lijo to fill the vacancies in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, following the resignations of Elena Highton de Nolasco (2021) and Juan Carlos Maqueda (2024).

In the statement, the organizations stated that “the appointment made by Decree 137/2025 deviates from the procedure established by the Constitution, and constitutes a clear abuse of a controversial power of the Executive to fill vacancies in jobs that require the approval of the Senate and that occur during its recess by decree.”

The Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), one of the signatory organizations, maintained that "to justify these appointments, the President invokes article 99, paragraph 19 of the National Constitution, which authorizes him to fill vacant positions that require the approval of the Senate when this legislative body is in recess" but without the necessary justification.

FARN also warned that "the precarious nature of their appointments violates one of the fundamental requirements for judges to be independent when administering justice."

In turn, the Buenos Aires City Bar Association, headed by Alberto Garay, "spoke out more than once, with reason, against Lijo's candidacy. The same was done by numerous entities linked to the law, in an astonishing coincidence in some cases, given the ideological diversity of the challengers."

“The overwhelming rejection of Lijo has no precedents. His notorious lack of qualifications for such a high office, both technically and morally, was made evident over the course of a year. The Executive Branch, however, has turned a deaf ear to all the observations made, in an unjustifiable manner,” he added in a statement.

The college then said that “the appointment by commission, on the other hand, is especially reprehensible given that a few days ago the Senate virtually rejected that nomination. Indeed, including the treatment of Lijo's nomination in the extraordinary sessions and the convening of the plenary session of the body, the session should have been adjourned when it was noted that the majority required by the Constitution would not be reached.”

For its part, ACIJ warned that “the decision of the Executive Branch to appoint two men to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation by decree, without the agreement of the Senate and through appointments on commission, constitutes an undue advance by the president over the Legislative Branch, a serious attack on judicial independence and a clear violation of the duty to guarantee gender equality in the highest court, which seriously impacts its legitimacy and institutional quality.”

Meanwhile, Amnesty International said that “the decision of the Executive Branch to appoint two men to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation by decree, without the agreement of the Senate and through appointments on commission, constitutes an undue advance by the president over the Legislative Branch , a serious attack on judicial independence and a clear violation of the duty to guarantee gender equality in the highest court, which seriously impacts its legitimacy and institutional quality.”