WeVote

Bill

Bill

PC 65

Para enmendar los Artículos 2, 4, 6 y 9, añadir un nuevo Artículo 12, y renumerar los actuales Artículos 24, 25, 26 y 27 como los nuevos Artículos 13, 14, 15 y 16, respectivamente, de la Ley Núm. 91 de 5 de diciembre de 1991, según enmendada, conocida como “Ley del Sistema de Evaluación de Jueces y Candidatos a Jueces”; promover la viabilidad del inciso (P) del Artículo 3 de la Ley Núm. 43 de 14 de mayo de 1932, según enmendada; a los fines de restablecer al Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de Puerto Rico la facultad de evaluar jueces y candidatos a jueces, con el propósito de tener un sistema de cualificación de nuestros jueces que procure una evaluación más completa, inclusiva y rigurosa de los parámetros con los que se evalúan a quienes tienen la suprema responsabilidad de impartir la justicia en nuestro país; y para otros fines pertinentes.

2025-2028 Session

Bill restores Puerto Rico Bar Association's judicial evaluation authority to improve judge qualifications and court system integrity through more rigorous assessment standards.

Comisión no recomienda aprobación de la medida
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · PC 65

Legislative bill overview

Bill PC 65 proposes to amend Puerto Rico's 1991 Judge Evaluation Law by restoring the Puerto Rico Bar Association's authority to evaluate judges and judicial candidates. The bill modifies Articles 2, 4, 6, and 9 of the existing law, adds new provisions, and reorganizes current articles to integrate the Bar Association's evaluation role into the judicial qualification system.

Why is this important

Judicial evaluation systems directly affect public confidence in the courts and the quality of justice administration. This bill addresses a fundamental question about institutional governance: whether an independent professional body (the Bar Association) or the current evaluating entity should lead judicial assessments. The outcome will shape how future judges are vetted and selected in Puerto Rico's justice system.

Potential points of contention

  • Institutional authority and separation of powers: Debate over whether the Bar Association should have primary evaluation authority versus current institutional arrangements, and how this affects judicial independence
  • Evaluation comprehensiveness: Disagreement over whether restoring Bar Association oversight actually produces "more complete and rigorous" evaluations or creates duplication and bureaucratic complications
  • Political influence concerns: Questions about whether professional bar associations adequately represent public interests or primarily serve legal profession interests when evaluating judges

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.