National deputy Graciela Parola defended Gildo Insfrán against the new process opened in the Supreme Court and accused the opposition of trying to remove him through judicial decisions. The legislator stated that her adversaries are afraid of the governor and compared the intervention of the courts with the proscriptions imposed by de facto governments.
The file, however, still does not have a decision on the merits. On 20 of August, the Court declared itself competent to analyze the lawsuit against the fourth transitional clause of the provincial Constitution and ordered that Formosa respond within 60 days. That resolution initiates the procedure and does not determine whether Insfrán can or cannot compete in 2027.
The conflict has as its background the December ruling of 2024 which declared unconstitutional the former article 132, enabling indefinite reelection. The subsequent provincial reform limited the governor and vice-governor to a single consecutive reelection, but established that the term in force at the time of the reform must be considered as the first under the new regime.
Insfrán has been governing Formosa since December of 1995 and is in his eighth consecutive term. The challenged provision could allow him to run for the 2027-2031, term, an interpretation that Confederación Frente Amplio Formoseño considers contrary to the republican principle. Parola stated that the governor never expressed that he is seeking another candidacy and described that hypothesis as opposition speculation.
The deputy also challenged her opponents to compete at the polls. Her comparison between judicial control and military proscriptions constitutes a political assessment, not a description of the institutional situation: the Court acts within a constitutional case, with referral to the province and the opportunity for defense. The judges do not choose the next governor nor appoint alternative candidates.
The pending issue is whether the transitional clause can count the eighth term as the first without contradicting the previous ruling and the republican requirements of Constitución Nacional. The Court will have to resolve that point after hearing the parties. Until then, there is no disqualification, definitive qualification, or proclaimed candidacy; any conclusion in either direction would anticipate a ruling that does not yet exist.
