Source: Lincoln Gomez
The De Meza Ruling: Legal & Constitutional Boundaries
The recent ruling in De Meza v. Director of Taxation (AUA202501405 & AUA202501407) offers more than a legal outcome – it clarifies how Aruba’s constitutional machinery balances legal process with political discretion. I wrote about it earlier this week in a blog.
What Happened?
Mike de Meza, a candidate for ministerial office, requested a standard declaration of fiscal conduct. The tax authority confirmed his current compliance. However, an earlier integrity screening – part of the broader vetting process – delayed his nomination.
As I noted in an earlier blog, the key legal question wasn’t about integrity per se, but about admissibility. I anticipated that the court would rule that the administrative court was not the proper venue for challenging a political nomination process – and the court confirmed exactly that. More importantly, it made clear that decisions about nominations belong in the political domain, not the courts.
In fact, the Court of First Instance went a step further and issued a public press release explicitly stating that this matter falls outside judicial competence and squarely within the realm of political decision-making. The court considered that the political leadership a.k.a. the “formador” now has a complete file to be able to make the call to present or reject De Meza as minister.
Why It Matters
The case touches on long-standing constitutional principles, including those from the 1985 Biesheuvel Commission report: the Governor formally appoints ministers, but the political responsibility lies with the Prime Minister and Parliament. The Kingdom only steps in when there’s a serious breach of constitutional order.
The 2000 Biesheuvel report reaffirmed the formateur’s central role. It’s the formateur who must weigh all relevant factors – not just current compliance, but also considerations tied to good governance. The Governor may advise, but the final decision rests with the political leadership. That said, if the Governor were to fundamentally disagree with the decision to proceed, there’s a theoretical path: the Governor could submit the nomination to the Kingdom government for annulment. Would the Charter allow for that? Would, in effect, bypass the Aruban Parliament, raising questions about the democratic legitimacy and internal autonomy of the island. Interesting questions, time will tell us the answers.
The Takeaway
A court ruling may or may not remove legal obstacles, but it doesn’t guarantee a seat at the cabinet table.
If the Prime Minister declines to nominate, he must provide a written explanation. If he proceeds, the Governor must approve. And contrary to some speculation, there’s no automatic Kingdom override; this seems to be an a.k.a. landelijke aangelegenheid – a domestic matter – squarely within Aruba’s jurisdiction.
De Meza reminds us that constitutional law doesn’t just define authority – it tests the relationships between legal clarity, political discretion, and democratic accountability. Interesting times ahead.
Thanks for reading. Catch you next column – and don’t forget to visit www.lincolngomez.com for all my latest blogs and podcasts.
#DeMeza #Aruba #constitutionalLaw #YourFavoriteLAwwyer #publicgovernance #ruleoflaw #judicialrestraint #kingdomrelations
