814.00/1197
The Minister in Guatemala (Hanna) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 22.]
Sir: Supplementing my despatch No. 605 of the thirteenth instant,25 and previous despatches concerning the proposed amendment of the Guatemalan Constitution, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy and translation25 of Decree No. 2067, enacted by the Legislative Assembly and signed by President Ubico on April 12, 1935, and published in the Diario de Centro America in its issue of April 13, 1935, which enumerates the Articles of the Constitution to be amended and provides for the election of a Constituent Assembly on May 1, 2 and 3 which will meet on May 15 to draft the amendments.
[Page 617]It will be noted that, by Article 1 of the Decree, the matter of amending Articles 66, 69 and 99, which relate to the succession to the Presidency, has been referred to the Constituent Assembly for its decision. Briefly stated, the existing provisions of these three Articles, as fixed by Decree No. 5 of December 20, 1927,26 are as follows:
Article 66 fixes the presidential term at six years, which period may not be extended, and prohibits the reelection of a President for twelve years after he has completed a former term.
Article 69 establishes the procedure to be followed in filling a temporary or permanent vacancy in the office of President of the Republic. This article appears to have no direct bearing on the legality of a reelection of President Ubico to succeed himself.
Article 99 fixes the procedure for wholly or partially amending the Constitution. A translation of this Article follows:
Article 99—The total or partial amendment of the Constitution may be decreed only by a two-thirds vote, at least, of the total number of Deputies who constitute the Legislative Assembly, which Assembly will specify the article or articles to be amended.
In whatever case of total amendment of the Constitution, or of Articles 66 and 69, and of this Article (99), or one or more of these three, the amendment may be decreed only when directed by at least two-thirds of the aforesaid votes in two distinct and successive periods of the ordinary sessions of the Legislative Assembly; and even then the Constitutent Assembly may meet to consider the amendment in such case only after a lapse of six years counted from the date of the decree.
The amendment of the Constitution may consist of the modification, the elimination, the addition to, the substitution of, or the addition of articles.
The Decree under discussion does not include Article 100 among those to be amended, although it seems to have a direct bearing on the legality of what is being attempted. This Article reads as follows in translation:
Article 100—The amendment having been decreed, the Legislative Assembly will call elections for a Constituent Assembly which should be organized within sixty days following the date of the call, except in the case foreseen in the preceding Article with respect to the amendment of that Article, of Article 66 and of Article 69 or any one of them and the entire Constitution, in which case the call should be made by the Legislative Assembly which is in session the fifth year after the date when the amendment was decreed, so that the organization of the Constituent may be effected on the termination of the fixed period of six years.
The four Articles mentioned were given their present form when the Constitution was amended in 1927, and it is well known that the purpose was to make it absolutely impossible for a President not merely to succeed himself but for him to be reelected before twelve years had elapsed since the termination of his previous term. Nevertheless, those who are directing this movement are maintaining that the procedure by which it is to be carried through will be legal. What that procedure is to be is not yet known to the public, and I doubt if the point has yet been decided. The plan which appears to be most [Page 618] prominent is to add a purely transitory article to the Constitution which, while leaving the existing provisions of the pertinent articles intact, would make an exception in the case of President Ubico and “legalize” his reelection, for this one time only, to meet the national emergency which could not have been foreseen in 1927.
It has been pointed out in the government-controlled press that the people are above the Constitution, evidently with the idea of justifying the retention of President Ubico in power in response to an overwhelming demand of the Guatemalan people, but so far there is no assurance that the people are to be given an opportunity to make known their will on this specific point in a popular election. The logical opportunity for this will be presented in the elections for the Constituent Assembly on May 1, 2 and 3, but the call for these elections contained in the Legislative decree merely states that Articles 66, 69 and 99 are among those which may be amended but without asking for an expression of the popular will on this specific point, unless it be considered that the people have delegated to the Constituent Assembly the power to express their will for them.
It would seem that the directors of this movement had and may still have available a very simple and direct means for a popular referendum to determine whether the people desire to override the Constitution, because this could be ascertained by submitting the specific question to the electorate for a “yes” or “no” vote at the elections for the Constituent Assembly. I do not know if this procedure is among those being considered, but my information does indicate that the directors of the movement are still in a quandary as to how they shall proceed.
Another procedure which would give the electorate an opportunity to express its will on the specific issue and thereby give an appearance of legality, would be to submit to popular vote the amendment as made by the Constituent Assembly, but this would necessitate a second popular election.
These are some of the alternatives which probably are being considered, but I will not be surprised if in the end the matter is left to the Constituent Assembly and its decision is accepted as representing the will of the people. This probably would be sufficient to meet the situation adequately so far as Guatemala itself is concerned, as there seems to be little probability at the present time that the Government will encounter any serious opposition. It is only natural and to be expected, however, that President Ubico is deeply concerned as to the response other Governments may make to his continuance in the Presidency. He no doubt desires to minimize as far as possible the chances for unpleasant international consequences of his action, but he seemingly has definitely decided to continue in the Presidency and [Page 619] not to be restrained from doing so by either national or international influences.
I have evaded any discussion of or even reference to this subject in my conversations with Guatemalan officials, and have avoided contact with them so far as practicable during the recent period when it was the principal topic of conversation. Through other channels I have kept informed of developments, and I have learned quite reliably that President Ubico is much concerned over how his action will be received in Washington and that this, more than anything else, is behind his desire to give the procedure the stamp of legality. Although I have expressed no opinion to any official of the Government, I have let it be known to one or two private individuals close to the President that I am profoundly interested and am watching developments with much anxiety. I have told them that, while it is primarily a Guatemalan matter, it nevertheless may have wide-spread repercussions, and, in this connection, I have pointed out that it might have an unfortunate influence on the development of political events in Nicaragua in the near future. I have also told them that, since it is generally conceded that President Ubico has definitely decided to remain in the Presidency for another term, I felt that I was justified in expressing the hope that a way would be found to give legality to his doing so, if that were humanly possible. And I also made some mention of the ease with which the question could be submitted to a popular referendum as already outlined in this despatch. One of those with whom I talked was a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and now Guatemala’s leading legal authority, and, although he is a supporter of President Ubico and convinced that the interests of the nation demand his continuance as President, he was emphatically of the opinion that only by giving the electorate an opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” on the specific constitutional issue could a semblance of legality be given to the outcome.
Respectfully yours,