Frontera Suau v. Padilla Rivera y otros
2025 TSPR 54
P.R.2025Background
- Proyecto Dignidad (PD), through its electoral commissioner Juan M. Frontera Suau, challenged the constitutionality of Arts. 3.1(2)(a)-(f) and 6.1 of the Código Electoral de 2020 after PD lost a proprietor seat on the Comisión Estatal de Elecciones (CEE) following the 2024 General Election. PD also sought relief against the CEE’s operational closure of its office and staff dismissals.
- The CEE notified PD on December 27, 2024 that PD’s office and employees would be removed effective January 13, 2025; PD sued on December 30, 2024 in TPI for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging statutory and constitutional violations.
- TPI held the CEE’s notice premature under Art. 3.10(2) but declined to resolve the constitutional challenge, invoking the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the same basis.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the constitutionality of Arts. 3.1(2)(a)-(f) and 6.1 and considered whether the lower courts erred by refusing to decide the constitutional claim.
- The statutory scheme classifies parties by electoral performance (Partido Estatal, Partido Principal, Partido de Mayoría), limits proprietor commissioner seats to a minimum of two and a maximum of three (with an "addition" mechanism), and gives additional commissioners more limited participation, offices, staff, and compensation—measures the Legislature said were justified by PROMESA-driven fiscal efficiency needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arts. 3.1(2)(a)-(f) & 6.1 of the 2020 Electoral Code violate equal protection / "axioma" of electoral equality by classifying parties and limiting proprietor seats | Frontera: scheme creates unequal, unjustified classification that deprives PD and its voters of equal representation and burdens vote and association rights | State/CEE: classifications rationally promote legitimate interests (efficiency, cost savings, proportionality) and do not bar PD from participation (PD retains an additional commissioner with voice/vote in relevant matters) | The majority upheld the provisions as constitutional under rational-basis review; they are not suspect classifications and do not substantially burden franchise or associational rights |
| Whether the challenged provisions implicate strict scrutiny because they burden fundamental rights (vote, association) or create a suspect classification | Frontera: classification affects fundamental rights (vote and association) and triggers strict scrutiny | State/CEE: classification is not based on suspect criteria nor does it substantially impede franchise; therefore rational-basis review applies | Court: no suspect classification nor substantial impediment to franchise established; use rational-basis scrutiny and sustain statute |
| Whether lower courts properly invoked constitutional avoidance and refused to decide the constitutional claim | Frontera: lower courts should have decided constitutional challenge after resolving statutory remedy issue | CEE: statutory resolution avoided need to address constitutionality | Supreme Court: lower courts erred to the extent avoidance applied; here the constitutional claim required resolution — but on merits majority still found statute constitutional |
| Whether PROMESA-driven fiscal and efficiency objectives justify the classifications and limits on commissioner membership | State/CEE: PROMESA and fiscal plan provided legitimate, rational legislative purpose to restructure and economize CEE operations | Frontera: fiscal goals do not justify burdens on minority-party representation; alternatives less onerous likely available | Court: recognized PROMESA and fiscal efficiency as legitimate interests and found a rational connection between objectives and the statutory design |
Key Cases Cited
- P.R.P. v. E.L.A., 115 D.P.R. 631 (P.R. 1984) (discusses the constitutional "axioma" of electoral equality and limits of judicially-created economic-equality claims)
- Com. CNP v. CEE, 197 D.P.R. 914 (P.R. 2017) (analyzed statutory electoral classifications and the scope of equality claims relating to party funding and representation)
- McClintock v. Rivera Schatz, 171 D.P.R. 584 (P.R. 2007) (discusses the fundamental nature of the right to vote and its contours)
- Domínguez Castro et al. v. E.L.A., 178 D.P.R. 1 (P.R. 2010) (explains the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and limits on addressing constitutional questions)
- López v. E.L.A., 165 D.P.R. 280 (P.R. 2005) (applies strict scrutiny where fundamental rights are implicated)
- Rodríguez Pagán v. Depto. Servicios Sociales, 132 D.P.R. 617 (P.R. 1993) (frames equal protection analysis and classifications)