Court of justice of the province of Catamarca suspends referendum in the city of Andalgalá

On 03/11/2010, the Deliberating Council of the City of Andalgalá, Province of Catamarca, issued Order No. 002/10 instructing the Municipal Executive Branch to carry out a Discretionary Referendum under binding terms on 05/25/2010, for citizens over 18 years-old to vote YES or NO in connection to development and/or exploitation of open-cut metal mining large-scale projects within the City of Andalgalá.

Mr. Farroni, District Attorney of the City of Andalgalá filed an autonomous unconstitutionality claim against Order No. 002/10, alleging that it breaches Sections 241 and 41 of the Argentine Constitution; Sections 66, 67 and 244 through 206 of the Province of Catamarca Constitution; and Section 7 of the Argentine Mining Code, among other regulations. Jointly with the unconstitutionality claim, Mr. Farroni requested a cautionary measure suspending the referendum mentioned above. His request was based on the aforementioned regulations, considering that the Order at hand sets regulations regarding matters whose competence belongs exclusively to the Provincial Government.

The Court of Justice of the Province of Catamarca (in re "Farroni, Daniel Oscar v. Concejo Deliberante de la Ciudad de Andalgalá - Direct Unconstitutionality Claim) decided to hold original jurisdiction on the subject matter since the claim "intends to settle the conflict arisen in connection with a Municipal Order - deemed as a type of local law both in form and in essence, regarded as breaching the constitutional order in-force".

Concerning the claimants standing, the Court pointed out that Mr. Farroni, as District Attorney, "undoubtedly has standing as claimant as long as the demand is directed against a Municipal Order". Regarding the counterparty, the Court indicated that "considering that the challenged regulation was enacted tacitly and without veto objection by the City Mayor, the standing as defendant belongs to the Head of the Municipal Executive Branch, to whom the unconstitutionality claim must be notified, jointly with the Deliberating Council".

Regarding the cautionary measure requested by the claimant, i.e. the suspension of the referendum provided under the challenged Municipal Order, the Court ruled that:

(a) The alleged right must be deemed plausible since the provisions of Order No. 002/10 would contain prima facie defects implying that "the factual and regulatory basis upon which the claim is sustained appear to be protected by seemingly true rights -fumus bonis iuris-".
(b) Risk of harm through the lapse of time or periculum in mora "is evidenced by the date and binding nature endowed by the challenged Order to the referendum, indicating the existence of a legal interest which must be protected and justifying the fast-track of the proceedings".
(c) As provided under the Province of Catamarca Civil and Commercial Procedure Code, Section 200, Subsection 1, the claimant was exempted from providing an injunction bond.

Consequently, the Court of Justice of the Province of Catamarca considered that the requirements for the applicability of the cautionary measures were complied with and granted said request, suspending the enforcement of Order No. 002/10.