El Salvador Attorney General Rodolfo Delgado got Re-Elected for three more years by the Salvadoran Legislative Assembly on Wednesday, December 22nd. His term will start from January 1st, 2022, to January 5th, 2025.
Delgado was appointed,
by legislators, to be a temporary Attorney General on May 1st, 2021. He replaced Attorney General Raul Melara, who had been removed from his duties on the same day.
Of the 84 legislators, 66 voted in favor, four against it, nine abstained, and five were not present to elect El Salvador Attorney General.
El Salvador Attorney General Rodolfo Delgado thanked the 66 deputies that voted for him for their trust and reiterated his commitment to justice.
After being re-elected, Rodolfo Delgado, in a press conference, assured that during his term, there will be no “selective justice.” “We are committed to the truth,”
declared Delgado. Attorney General Delgado got support from all the legislators who support Nayib Bukele.
“In these months, I have seen the correct decisions of Mr. Rodolfo Delgado, and that is why I approved my vote for his election. Now we do have a state that works for the people.”
Members of the opposing political parties, ARENA, FMLN, VAMOS, and Nuestro Tiempo, abstained from proposing a candidate for the post of Attorney General of the Republic.
Since taking office on May 1st, Attorney General Delgado has been heavily criticized by the Bukele opposition.
The criticism emanates from him taking office after the previous Attorney General, Raul Melara, was removed.
The opposition also claims that, under the Delgado administration, a series of cases of alleged corruption in the current government were shut down.
The only deputy that spoke out against the election of Delgado was Claudia Ortiz of the VAMOS political party.
From the beginning of the selection process, Deputy Ortiz made it clear that she was not happy with the selection process.
“Because I was in the Political Commission, I can say that the process for electing the attorney general was not done well. The desired profile was not previously defined. The profiles were not evaluated according to objective criteria as dictated by jurisprudence. That is why my vote was against it.”