22/06/2026 06:35 - Politica
Ilustración editorial del edificio de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación con columnas neoclásicas, primeros planos de documentos legales con sellos oficiales y la bandera argentina ondeando, iluminación dramática que resalta la seriedad institucional
The publication of Decree 467/2026 has opened a heated debate across various sectors linked to Argentina's justice system. The decree, signed by President Javier Milei and Justice Minister Juan Bautista Mahiques, modified Decrees 222/2003 and 588/2003, which were established during Néstor Kirchner's presidency and regulated different aspects of the selection process for Supreme Court justices, the Attorney General's Office, and lower courts.
Since its publication in the Official Gazette on June 16, civil society organizations, legal representatives, and provincial judicial authorities have issued statements regarding the scope of the reform. While the Government maintains that the changes seek to speed up filling vacancies and avoid overlapping procedures, various entities have raised concerns about several provisions.
For international readers: Argentina's Supreme Court (Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación) is the highest judicial authority in the country, similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. It has final appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and original jurisdiction in certain matters. Justices are appointed by the President with Senate approval, a process that since 2003 included public participation mechanisms to ensure transparency.
The Junta Federal de Cortes y Superiores Tribunales (JUFEJUS) is a federal body comprising the highest courts of all Argentine provinces and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, responsible for coordinating judicial policies across the nation's federal system.
The new decree argues that Argentina faces an institutional crisis due to the high percentage of judicial vacancies. Among the main changes:
The regulation states that the current procedure became a duplication of instances that slows down the vacancy-filling process and distorts the presidential nomination stage.
The declared objective is to "remove unnecessary procedural steps and duplicate stages within the judge appointment process, in order to restore the constitutional dynamism of said procedure."
The decree states that the measure "does not imply the suppression of publicity, transparency, or citizen participation mechanisms," as these instances "will remain fully guaranteed through the constitutional and regulatory procedure developed before the Honorable Senate of the Nation."
A joint statement from the Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ), Poder Ciudadano, Equipo Latinoamericano de Justicia y Género (ELA), Amnesty International, Democracia en Red, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Instituto de Estudios Comparados en Ciencias Penales y Sociales (INECIP), Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL), and the GQUAL campaign stated that the decree "eliminated the possibility for citizens to submit observations" regarding candidates before they are sent to the Senate.
The organizations argued that prior participation allowed them to "provide information, formulate observations, and enrich the evaluation conducted by the Executive Branch itself."
Furthermore, they criticized the repeal of provisions promoting diverse composition of the highest court, warning that this hinders the integration of a tribunal with diverse profiles and different trajectories that would be more representative of the community.
The Junta Federal de Cortes y Superiores Tribunales de Justicia de las Provincias Argentinas y Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (JUFEJUS) reaffirmed that the composition of the Supreme Court and lower courts must respect "the principles of suitability, gender parity, federal representation, and legal specialty."
It considered that these criteria "do not constitute mere political opportunity guidelines but requirements derived from the National Constitution" and emphasized that "any modification of selection mechanisms that disregards or weakens these principles implies an institutional regression incompatible with a plural, inclusive, and representative Justice system of the country's territorial and social diversity."
The declaration criticized the repeal of Articles 3 and 6 of Decree 222/2003, defining it as "a serious institutional regression."
Note for international readers: The Colegio Público de la Abogacía de la Capital Federal (CPACF) is the mandatory professional association for all lawyers practicing in Buenos Aires, Argentina's capital. It plays a crucial role in regulating the legal profession and defending the rule of law.
CPACF President Alejandra García argued that the modifications "eliminate citizen participation instances that, for more than two decades, allowed universities, professional associations, civil society organizations, and citizens to formulate observations regarding candidates proposed by the Executive Branch."
García recalled that the regime established in 2003 constituted "a significant advancement in transparency, publicity of government acts, and citizen control over processes of singular institutional importance."
She also rejected the argument that subsequent Senate intervention makes prior participation unnecessary. "The possibility for civil society to express support or objections before nominations are sent contributed to enriching the presidential decision, strengthening the legitimacy of appointments, and expanding the transparency of the process," she concluded.
Argentina's Supreme Court of Justice is currently composed of three justices:
| Justice | Background |
|---|---|
| Horacio Rosatti | Current Chief Justice, former provincial governor and senator |
| Carlos Rosenkrantz | Constitutional law scholar, first Jewish justice on the Court |
| Ricardo Lorenzetti | Legal scholar specialized in civil law, former Chief Justice |
The Court currently operates with fewer than its full complement of five justices, which has been a point of contention in Argentine judicial politics.
Decree 222/2003, signed on June 19, 2003, had regulated the procedure for nominating Supreme Court justices, incorporating mechanisms for publicizing candidates' backgrounds, receiving citizen observations, and guiding criteria for composing the highest court.
Decree 588/2003, enacted on August 13, 2003, extended part of this scheme to the Attorney General of the Nation, the Public Defender General, and selection processes for federal judges, prosecutors, and public defenders.
These decrees were a response to Argentina's 2001-2002 institutional crisis, when the Supreme Court faced massive public rejection during the economic collapse. The reforms aimed to increase transparency and citizen participation in judicial appointments after decades of perceived politicization of the Court.
Alfredo S. Quiroga
