Gallardo case in context: choosing between legality and legitimacy
The Gallardo case has drawn a dividing line in the public perception of Argentina’s judicial power. The Supreme Court’s decision to block Martín Gallardo from taking his seat on the Magistrates Council was seen not just as a legal ruling but as a deeply political maneuver. What initially seemed like a technical judicial resolution soon evolved into a diagnostic of how power functions behind the scenes in one of the Republic’s most opaque institutions.
This moment revealed that, beyond any legal argument, political strategy often drives judicial behavior, especially when decisions affect the balance of power between institutions. In that light, analyzing this case becomes key to understanding both the formal and informal workings of the country’s highest court.
Deconstructing the ruling: how the Court bent its own institutional logic
Scrutinizing the Supreme Court’s decision reveals a clear pattern of legal selectivity. This same Court, which in past rulings argued that political matters were «non-justiciable», now stepped in to actively intervene in a congressional decision.
What’s contradictory is that the Court justified this interference through a hyper-formalist reading of procedural rules while disregarding fundamental democratic principles such as representation, popular sovereignty, and legislative independence. In short, the Court applies the law when convenient, invoking legality to shield its power and ignoring it when it serves to limit that power.
From Supreme Court to political operator: acting beyond judicial boundaries
In this context, the Court no longer acts as a neutral guardian of constitutional order. Instead, it emerges as a major political player, strategically shaping national governance. Its ability to halt appointments, block reforms, and tilt institutional power dynamics gives it influence that far surpasses a purely legal role.
This shift becomes evident when one considers its past actions, including rulings that favored corporate interests or interfered in election-related matters. The Gallardo case is no anomaly, but rather a continuation of a broader pattern: a self-protecting judiciary that functions as the gatekeeper of conservative status quos.
The myth of judicial independence: how institutional legitimacy is eroding
Institutional legitimacy relies on both legal accuracy and the public’s perception of fairness. In Gallardo’s case, that legitimacy was deeply shaken. The Court not only overstepped its boundaries—it did so with no significant political or academic consensus.
Public trust continues to decline. Legal scholars, human rights groups, and ordinary citizens alike see a Court detached from democratic values, operating in isolation and often in alignment with private power. The perception grows that the judiciary, far from being a balance to political excess, has become part of the problem.
Gallardo and the Magistrates Council: a battle for judicial control
At the heart of the Gallardo case lies the battle for control over the Magistrates Council, the entity responsible for appointing, disciplining, and removing judges. Dominating this body means controlling the future of Argentina’s justice system—a fact the Supreme Court understands well.
By blocking a candidate aligned with judicial reform and independence, the Court preserves a structure where corporate-friendly, conservative interests remain dominant. This isn’t the first such move—every attempt to reform the judiciary from within faces similar pushback from entrenched power centers.
A dangerous precedent: when courts do politics without consequence
The most dangerous aspect of the Gallardo ruling isn’t just the damage done to institutional rules, but the precedent it sets for the future. If the Supreme Court can arbitrarily block democratic appointments and reinterpret laws without accountability, a new doctrine of institutional impunity emerges.
This sets the stage for a judiciary that operates like a political actor—but without the checks, limits, or democratic oversight that govern elected officials. Judicial independence is no longer a safeguard for democracy—it becomes a cover for unrestrained authority.
The quiet alliance: media silence and political complicity
Another troubling aspect of the Gallardo case is the media’s muted reaction. While some outlets celebrated the Court’s «institutional defense», most avoided any in-depth analysis or public critique.
This isn’t accidental. It reflects a larger power network, where judicial, political, and media elites collaborate—often informally—to defend their interests. The Gallardo ruling illustrates how hegemony is not only built through violence or repression, but also through silence and omission.
Substantive law versus legal formalism: recovering justice’s purpose
The Gallardo case reopens an old but urgent debate: Is law about applying rules to the letter, or upholding the principles that give those rules meaning? The Court chose the former, at the cost of its own legitimacy and the public’s confidence.
This brings us to a critical juncture: the need to redefine the role of law in society. Should it preserve privilege, or transform inequality? The Gallardo ruling shows how legal formalism is often used to maintain an unjust order, not to challenge it.
