Argentina’s Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that an article of Formosa’s constitution allowing indefinite reelection of the province’s governor and vice governor is unconstitutional. The issue blew up during the 2023 elections, which saw incumbent Gildo Insfrán clinch his eighth consecutive term.

Although the court pointed out that he should not have been allowed to run, Insfrán will be permitted to serve the rest of his term, which ends in December 2027.

“Indefinite reelection not only dilutes the separation of powers but also undermines the very principle of democracy,” read the 57-page ruling. “Unlimited reelection, far from constituting the maximum realization of the popular will, allows the incumbent to accumulate — after several consecutive mandates — advantages that are inadequate for a fair electoral contest.”

“It leads to a concentration of power and distorts the control that should be exercised by other branches of government by drastically reducing the electoral options of the people.”

Three separate lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court last year in the hopes of banning Insfrán’s reelection in June. He is currently the longest-serving governor in the country, having served in the role since 1995 — after having two terms as vice governor from 1987.

Thursday’s ruling came in response to the Frente Amplio Formoseño Confederation, which sought to declare Formosa’s article 132 unconstitutional. Modified in 2003 under Insfrán’s government, article 132 stipulates that governors hold office for four years and “can be reelected” with no further specifications. 

“What is being invalidated here is the concrete institutional practice developed under the protection of the aforementioned article 132, which allowed the uninterrupted exercise of power by the current governor for almost four decades, contrary to the republican system of government,” said Judge Carlos Rosenkratz in his opinion.

Opposition politicians in Formosa argued that article 132 constituted a legal loophole because it does not explicitly limit the number of times a governor can run for reelection. However, according to the judges, the crux of the issue was article 132’s legality.

“This is not a problem of interpreting an ambiguous norm, since the text is clear both in its formulation and implementation, but of disqualifying it for its contradiction with the National Constitution,” said the ruling, pointing to article 5, which establishes the “republican principle of alternation of power.”

The court mandated that the text should be “corrected” but highlighted that it was not the judiciary’s role to define a maximum number of reelections. It did, however, suggest that provinces could introduce such limits to give candidates and the electorate “clear rules” to abide by.