Selection process

The ombudsman of Bolivia is the presiding officer of the Ombudsman's Office. The Plurinational Legislative Assembly elects the ombudsman to a single six-year term, computed from the date of their inauguration, without the possibility of extension.^[1] The Constitution establishes that the Legislative Assembly must issue a prior public summons for prospective candidates whose professional capacity and merits will be qualified through a public contest among those recognized for their ability in defense of human rights.^[2] Crucially, the selection process necessitates the support of two-thirds of the Legislative Assembly in a plenary session of both chambers: that is, 110 of the 166 parliamentarians—twenty-four of the thirty-six senators and eighty-seven of the 130 deputies.^[3][4]

The long interim

David Tezanos Pinto, a criminal lawyer from La Paz, served as the National Director of Public Defense of the Ministry of Justice from January 2014 until May 2016. As the Movement for Socialism (MAS-IPSP) assumed control of both the Chamber of Deputies and Senate with a majority of two-thirds in the 2014 elections, the party held full control over the ombudsman selection and appointment process.^[5] Upon the end of Ombudsman Rolando Villena's term on 13 May 2016, Tezanos Pinto was elected as his replacement, with the votes of 103 of the 144 legislators present.^[6]

Throughout his term, Tezanos Pinto remained at odds with the opposition, who observed a partisan inclination towards the government. However, his ultimate downfall came when his wife reported him to the Prosecutor's Office on allegations of domestic violence, leading him to present his resignation on 24 January 2019, halfway through his term.^[7] Nadia Cruz, deputy ombudsman for the defense of and compliance with human rights, was subsequently elected as the acting authority, while the Legislative Assembly carried out the task of issuing the call for a new titular ombudsman.^[8] However, this process stalled, and by 2021, Cruz's interim administration had already exceeded the length of Tezanos Pinto's entire tenure and far surpassed the ninety days the law establishes for an acting authority to remain in office.^[1]

Legislative process

Opposition legislators protest at the front of parliament, holding up signs saying: "Ombudsman of the People, not Ombudsman of the MAS".

By the time Tezanos Pinto's originally prescribed term was set to expire in 2022, the MAS had lost its two-thirds supermajority in the 2020 election, meaning it would have to negotiate with the opposition to elect a new ombudsman.^[3][4] On 25 February 2022, the MAS presented a draft bill to initiate the selection and appointment process.^[4] In a marathon session on 5 March, the majority-MAS Mixed Legislative Commission of the Constitution approved the regulations to initiate the process. Although the MAS took into account some adjustments suggested by the opposition, they were nonetheless criticized for the approval of Article 20. This section of the draft regulation established that applicants for the position of ombudsman must meet at least eight of fourteen criteria before being approved. Legal analysts noted that since the MAS had a majority in the Mixed Commission, this rule would grant them complete control over the pre-selection of candidates, meaning that the plenary session of the legislature could do little more than choose between different MAS-aligned officials. Constitutional lawyer Williams Bascopé stated in this way, "the opposition is neutralized". Silvia Padilla, president of the Bolivian National Bar Association, elaborated that "the mediocrity of the opposition" had allowed institutions such as the Ombudsman's Office to "become an operating arm of the MAS".^[9]

Also questioned was Article 8 Section 15 of the draft regulation. This addendum disqualified all individuals who participated in the "rupture of the constitutional order", referring to the mass mobilizations that forced the resignation of then-president Evo Morales in November 2019, an event the MAS considers to have been a coup d'état. MAS Deputy Gualberto Arispe, who designed the regulation, stated that the rule barred all individuals who protested in 2019 or participated in the subsequent transitional government from being presented as candidates for the position of ombudsman.^[10]

Caucus leaders announce consensus on a draft regulation to call for the election of a new ombudsman, 14 March 2022.

On 9 March, the Senate and Deputies installed a legislative session to approve the regulations and issue the call for a new ombudsman. As soon as the session began, Chuquisaca Senator Silvia Salame of Civic Community (CC) raised a preliminary motion to establish that the regulation face the approval of two-thirds of the Legislative Assembly. Salame argued that since the Constitution states that the election of the ombudsman requires two-thirds support, the regulation must also be approved by that amount.^[11] The debate on Salame's motion erupted into general disorder, with shouts and whistles, as well as physical confrontations between legislators. The quarrel forced Vice President David Choquehuanca—presiding as president of the Legislative Assembly—to suspend the session for the day and summon caucus leaders to impose order over their subordinate parliamentarians.^[12][13]

The following day, Choquehuanca met with caucus leaders to seek consensus between all three legislative blocs. CC maintained their proposal that the candidate selection process require the support of two-thirds of the legislature. At the same time, Creemos demanded that the disqualification of participants in the 2019 crisis be excluded as an eligibility factor. While no agreement was met, the parties agreed to resume negotiations within the next two or three days.^[14] On 14 March, caucus leaders met again to review at least a dozen articles and provisions within the draft regulation.^[15] Also present were Vice President Choquehuanca and Minister of Justice Iván Lima, a fact that, according to Creemos caucus leader José Carlos Gutiérrez, "show[ed the] predisposition" of the ruling party to resolve the conflict". After some hours of negotiations, legislators of all three caucuses announced that they had reached a consensus and that the suspended legislative session would be resumed the following day.^[16] The most notable change in the draft regulation was the removal of Article 8 Section 15, thus eliminating the ban on those involved in the 2019 crisis and bringing the candidate selection process in line with the one in 2016. Both CC and Creemos assured that their political forces would vote in favor of the amended regulation.^[15] On 15 March, the legislature reconvened and unanimously approved the amended regulations, establishing eighteen requirements to hold office.^[17][18] The official call for the election of an ombudsman was issued the following day, with a fifteen-day application period being opened on 18 March.^[19]

Observers

The regulations approved by the Legislative Assembly provided for oversight of the designation process by civil society organizations with recognized legal status, whose dedicated purpose is the promotion and/or defense of human rights. One of the organizations empowered to oversee the process was the Permanent Assembly of Human Rights of Bolivia (APDHB), chaired by Amparo Carvajal. However, on 29 March, it was noted that the Mixed Commission managing the election had certified a "parallel" APDHB chaired by Édgar Salazar as the supervising body.^[20] In December 2021, human rights activists affiliated with the MAS had discarded Carvajal's leadership and formed their own institution, electing a new board of directors with Salazar—a member of the MAS—as its president.^[21] Upon request, Carvajal was accredited as a citizen overseer, with the Mixed Commission clarifying that any civilian may witness the selection proceedings. Apart from Carvajal and the parallel APDHB, four other institutions were approved to oversee the process, including the Millennium Foundation and the Build Foundation.^[22]

Registered

The following officially registered their candidacy:

Declined to run

The following received some speculation about a possible candidacy, but subsequently ruled themselves out:

• José María Cabrera, former State attorney general (2019–2020).^[266][267]
• Roberto de la Cruz, former leader of the El Alto Regional Workers' Center (COR-El Alto).^[268]
• María Galindo, leader of the Mujeres Creando collective.^[46]
• David Inca, representative of the victims of Sacaba and Senkata.^[268]

Qualified

The following applicants were qualified to move to the second phase:^[279][280]

Evaluation of merits

Between 18 and 22 April, the sixty-six qualifying candidates were subjected to an evaluation of merits. Those who met at least six of the ten criteria were approved to move to the interview phase.^[281] Among the evaluated criteria were professional experience in the promotion and defense of human rights, publications and research on human rights, postgraduate degrees or specialties in human rights, and actions to support vulnerable sectors of society. After four days, the Mixed Commission reported that sixteen or the original sixty-six candidates had been approved; twelve men and four women.^[282][283]

Interviews

The sixteen remaining candidates moved on to face-to-face interviews with the members of the Mixed Commission. Ninety questions were asked—pre-approved by the Mixed Commission and reviewed by the Executive Committee of the Bolivian University—referring to the interviewee's knowledge on the Political Constitution of the State, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.^[284] Between 26 and 27 April, seven candidates—four men and three women—were authorized as candidates to be voted on by the entire Legislative Assembly. On the first day of interviews, four applicants were approved: Pedro Callisaya, Andrea Calvo, Antonia Chipana, and Evelín Cossío; while on the second day, Rubén Julio Estrada, Leonardo Iquise, and Porfirio Machado were approved.^[285]

The final report by the Mixed Commission was approved on 28 April. Notably, only the MAS and one opposition deputy—Sergio Maniguary of Creemos—signed the document. CC refused to support the final list, accusing the MAS of having "broken the consensus" by disqualifying Marco Antonio Loayza and Marco Antonio Lucero despite the fact that they met the requirements for the position.^[286] The Citizen Observation of Democracy (OCD), an observer in the pre-selection process, noted that the vagueness of the qualification parameters meant that the final list of candidates was largely chosen based on the personal discretion of the members of the Mixed Commission.^[287]

Final candidates

The following applicants were qualified as the final candidates for ombudsman of Bolivia:^[288]

• Pedro Francisco Callisaya Aro, member of the Judicial Council.
• Claudia Andrea Calvo Campos, business administrator.
• Luisa Antonia Chipana Ubaras, human rights lawyer.
• Evelín Patricia Cossío Marquez, lawyer.
• Rubén Julio Estrada Candia, lawyer.
• Ramiro Leonardo Iquise Pally, public official in the Ombudsman's Office.
• Porfirio Machado Gisbert, candidate for member of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal in 2019.

• 
  Pedro Callisaya
  from Murillo Province
• 
  Andrea Calvo
  from Oropeza Province
• 
  Antonia Chipana
  from Cercado Province
• 
  Evelín Cossío
  from Sud Yungas Province
• 
  Julio Estrada
  from Murillo Province
• 
  Leonardo Iquise
  from Omiste Province
• 
  Porfirio Machado
  from Murillo Province

First session

Parliamentarians convene in a legislative session to elect a new ombudsman, 5 May 2022.

The legislative session to elect a new ombudsman was convened shortly after 9 a.m. on 5 May. In their statements, legislators from Creemos and CC outlined their opposition to the vote. Deputy Marioly Morón called the election "fraudulent [because] all the applicants that remained are from the MAS", while Deputy Enrique Urquidi noted that "a political line and decision distorted the work we did". Notably, some MAS legislators also objected to the presence of some candidates, including Deputy Gladys Quispe, who accused Evelín Cossío of being an "accomplice in the coup d'état" and not speaking "one iota" of Aymara.^[292]

At 4:35 p.m., after several hours of debate, legislators began the voting process. In previous legislative elections, assembly members were traditionally handed blank sheets of paper on which they would write the name of their preferred candidate before being called to the front of the hemicycle to cast their vote. This time, the process was changed, and legislators were individually called to the front of the hemicycle, where six officiating parliamentarians handed them a blank sheet and an envelope. The voting legislator was then directed to a "dark room" where they could anonymously cast their vote. Choquehuaca noted that this process was decided by those who attended the meeting called the previous day; that is to say, the MAS.^[293]

In the first round of voting, the MAS failed to reach the necessary two-thirds to elect a new ombudsman. After all ballots were counted, Pedro Callisaya emerged with the majority of the votes at sixty-five. He was followed by Evelín Cossío with forty-six votes and Porfirio Machado with thirty. Two other candidates received a combined four votes while eighteen legislators left their ballots blank and one other invalidated his. As such, no candidate received the necessary 109 votes to achieve two-thirds.^{[294][lower-alpha 2]} The legislature's inability to reach consensus continued into the second round with both Callisaya and Cossío increasing in their vote share but nonetheless failing to reach two-thirds. By that point, as the more than twelve hour session dragged on into the morning of 6 May, Choquehuanca determined to intermediately suspend vote, to be resumed on a later date.^[296] Until then, both opposition caucuses initiated a vigil in La Paz to avoid the reinstallation of the session without their presence, a tactic previously employed by the ruling party.^[297]

Intermission and debate

Creemos demanded that the process be started from scratch.

Though unable to reach consensus, CC nonetheless celebrated its success in blocking a unilateral decision on the part of the MAS.^[298] Following the vote, Deputy Carlos Alarcón announced that the CC caucus had chosen Cossío as its candidate of choice. Likewise, he stated that the coalition would not support Callisaya as he was the ruling party's preferred candidate. Neither, however, would CC opt for the blank or null vote, "because it would be a vote in favor of Nadia Cruz; there must be a new ombudsman".^[299] For her part, Cossío considered it likely that Deputy Quispe's accusations against her prior to the vote had motived the CC caucus to support her candidacy.^[300] In contrast to CC's position, Creemos maintained its lack of confidence in any of the seven finalists, considering the process "tainted from the start". Therefore, the coalition announced its intention to nullify its vote in any subsequent cessions until the entire process was started from scratch.^[301]

On the other hand, analysts also noted a fracture in the MAS between those ruling party legislators who supported Callisaya and those who voted for Machado. Per sources consulted by Página Siete, the discrepancy related to a broader fracture in the party between supporters of MAS leader and former president Evo Morales and incumbent president Luis Arce, with Machado toeing the line of the Evistas while Callisaya was more aligned with the current government. CC Senator Nely Gallo noted that in the recess preceding the second vote, MAS parliamentarians were observed attempting to convince one another to vote for their preferred candidate. By the second round, most of the MAS caucus coalesced around Callisaya, though not entirely. In that sense, political scientist Manfredo Bravo pointed out that Arce held the advantage due to his incumbency. For his part, MAS Deputy Ramiro Venegas assured that the divided vote only meant that legislators held "different perspectives … that does not mean a fracture in the MAS".^[302] Following a series of internal meetings, Gutiérrez announced that the MAS had settled on Callisaya as its candidate of choice.^[303]

Amid the inability of either the ruling party or the opposition to reach an agreement, the Ombudsman's Office faced an imminent crisis. Cruz's interim mandate had exceeded its prescribed period by such an extent that Tezanos Pinto's original six-year term was set to expire on 14 May. Per Article 12 of Law N° 870 regulating the Ombudsman's Office, the incumbent authority shall cease functions following the fulfillment of their mandate. Given this, the MAS analyzed a series of alternatives to replace Cruz. The only viable option prescribed by law was to appoint a deputy ombudsman to be the acting authority, as had occurred with Cruz in 2019. In that sense, Daniel Ramírez, deputy for the promotion and dissemination of human rights, was the only incumbent deputy ombudsman.^[304] Ultimately, however, the MAS decided to extend Cruz's mandate, relying on an interpretation of the regulations that allowed for the acting ombudsman to remain in office until the appointment of a new official.^[305] The opposition rejected that justification as unconstitutional, with Alarcón stating that Cruz's continuation in office constituted a usurpation of functions.^[306]

Second session

After an eleven-day intermission, Choquehuanca reconvened the legislative session on 16 May. For the third time, no candidate achieved the necessary two-thirds. Of the 161 legislators present, ninety-two voted for Callisaya, ten more than previously but fifteen short of a supermajority.^{[lower-alpha 3]} Likewise, Cossío attainted forty-five votes, a reduction of two votes compared to the second round. However, Machado saw the largest reduction in support, receiving just two votes, nine less than he had previously achieved. In contrast, Antonia Chipana rose to third place, though with only four votes. Furthermore, in line with Creemos' position, fifteen legislators left their ballots blank, and three nullified theirs.^[308][307] Following the vote, Choquehuanca suspended the session, convening a meeting between the heads of the three caucuses to evaluate the situation and hopefully reach a consensus. However, the talks ended in failure after Creemos abandoned the meeting; the coalition had unsuccessfully sought for three of its delegates to attend rather than the agree-upon two. Rather than continue the dialogue without them, Choquehuanca opted to suspend the meeting, a decision supported by CC.^[309]

A bipartisan board of legislators tally the results of the third round, 16 May 2022.

Third session

The legislature reconvened for a third time on 18 May, two days after its previous attempt at resolving the issue. Once again, the process culminated in the failure to elect a new authority, with the three caucuses entrenching themselves in their respective positions. The MAS fully coalesced around Callisaya, granting him ninety-nine votes, while forty-seven CC legislators submitted ballots in favor of Cossío, an incremental yet unsubstantial increase for both candidates. Conversely, support for Chipana decreased by two while all sixteen Creemos senators and deputies left their ballots blank. With this impasse in mind, Deputy Arispe submitted a motion to postpone the election to a future session—with no scheduled date or time—justifying that the multiple unsuccessful attempts were hindering the legislature's law-making duties. The motion was supported and passed by a majority vote of the MAS caucus.^[310][311]

Senator Andrea Barrientos (CC) casts her vote during the legislature's fourth attempt to elect a new ombudsman, 18 May 2022.

Interlude and fourth session

With the process paralyzed, the legislature moved on to other tasks. The issue of electing a new ombudsman remained largely untouched for two months, at which point the conflict flared up again in the wake of a controversial ruling by the Fourth Constitutional Chamber of La Paz. On 15 July, the court issued Resolution 178/2022, which ruled that: "If the Legislative Assembly does not fulfill [its] task ... and is hindered in a constant, repetitive manner for a period of time that exceeds ... seventy days, under a criterion of rationality, coordination and cooperation of powers must be sought, including going to the other power such as the executive branch".^[312] In effect, the court's decision granted President Arce the power to unilaterally designate a new ombudsman should the legislature fail to do so.^[313]

The ruling prompted an uproar from the opposition, with CC's leader, Carlos Mesa, denouncing it as a legislative coup "annulling the powers of the Legislative Assembly". In an official complaint, CC denounced that "with this resolution, the constitutional, republican, and democratic system recognized ... [by] the Constitution is broken; the current president becomes an emperor who will decide for himself and before himself, ignoring the powers that correspond to the legislative body". The opposition also expressed concern over the fact that the ruling could be applied to other authorities, including the comptroller general, high judges and prosecutors, and even members of the country's highest electoral, judicial, and constitutional tribunals, whose terms were set to expire in 2023.^[314][315] Even members of the ruling party expressed disquietude over the court's decision, with Freddy Mamani, president of the Chamber of Deputies, considering it incorrect for the president to designate the ombudsman, while Cruz assured that the Constitution made it clear that "only the legislative body ... can generate the appointment".^[316][317]

The court's unexpected ruling spurred the Legislative Assembly back into action, and in late July, Choquehuanca announced that another vote would be held on the topic.^[318] The session, however, was not formally convened until the first day of September, a full three months after the previous vote took place.^[319] For journalist Pablo Peralta, the hope of the MAS was that the court's ruling would pressure the opposition into finally settling the matter through the legislature. Senators Gutiérrez and Leonardo Loza both alluded to this, with the latter stating that "if [two-thirds] is not achieved, [the constitutional ruling] will be evaluated".^[320] These hopes were quickly dashed, however, and for the fifth time in a row, none of the candidates reached the necessary threshold. Callisaya dropped to ninety-seven votes, Cossío to forty-four, Calvo received one, Creemos cast fifteen blank votes, and two ballots were annulled.^{[321][lower-alpha 4]}

Fifth session

Final session to elect a new ombudsman
In a chaotic session, the MAS elected Pedro Callisaya in a vote the opposition denounced as rigged.
Protestas de la oposición en la Asamblea, puesto que el MAS pretende hacer una votación para Defensor del Pueblo
La elección del nuevo Defensor del Pueblo ha generado reclamos desde la oposición

Faced with five failed votes and the effective impossibility of reaching an agreement, the MAS resorted to unilaterally designating the new ombudsman. On the morning of 23 September, during a session originally convened to deal with two bills, Deputy Jauregui proposed a last-minute modification to the legislature's agenda, changing the order of the day to include another vote. The move took advantage of the fact that thirty-two opposition parliamentarians were on leave at the time, most having traveled to attend the events commemorating Santa Cruz's 212th anniversary.^[322][323] In an environment of shouts and physical altercations, and with only 121 parliamentarians present, the MAS elected Pedro Callisaya as the country's next ombudsman. Callisaya attained ninety-five votes, representing ninety-seven percent of the votes cast but just fifty-eight percent of what would have been required if all 166 legislators had been present; those in the opposition who were in attendance boycotted the vote.^[324][325] The opposition lambasted the result as "rigged" and accused the government of having "mortally wounded democracy" by perpetrating a "coup against parliament".^[326] In a later press conference, Freddy Mamani, for his part, declared: "mission accomplished".^[327]

Notes

Footnotes