The Rule of Law in Uruguay is in CTI: Judge Iris Vega Ottonello must resign today or be dismissed

Legal judge Iris Vega Ottonello did not make a “mistake” in inventing a child out of “socio-affective possession”. He committed an institutional crime: he usurped popular sovereignty, violated the Civil Code, trampled on scientific evidence and turned the bench into a pulpit of social engineering

.

This outrage can no longer be resolved with a simple appeal. It requires an immediate institutional response: the voluntary resignation of the magistrate or her express dismissal by the Judicial Council and the Supreme Court of

Justice.

Because what's at stake isn't just Robin Henderson's heritage. The very survival of the rule of law in Uruguay is at stake.

Let's

remember the facts, which the judge decided to ignore as if they were mere uncomfortable opinions: the DNA tests are conclusive. Maximiliano Benjamín Sverco Morantes is not the biological son of Robin Henderson. It never was. Nor was it adopted in accordance with the law. Pamela Stefani Sverco, her mother, set up a calculated influence operation for years on an 87-year-old, frail and isolated man. The last will that disinherits the three legitimate children — Alan James, Robert Lee and Lucy Henderson — reeks of consent and undue influence. Any first-year law student knows this. Any honest judge would have overturned it

.

But Iris Vega Ottonello is not an honest judge. She's a militant in a robe

.

In his sentence, he elevated “affection” and “socio-affective bond” above biology, above the will, above written law and above objective truth. He wrote, with a curse that embarrasses the judiciary: “the deep fatherly love that united you to Robin was evidenced.” That sentence is not a judicial paragraph. It's a post-modern manifesto. It's the statement that, for this magistrate, reality is negotiable when it upsets the emotional narrative. It is the consecration of subjectivism as a source

of law.

And here comes the serious thing: this is not an exceptional case. This is the inevitable logic of a judiciary that, for years, has decided that its mission is not to apply the law, but to “transform society”. We have seen judgments that rewrite the concept of family, that impose gender ideologies against the popular will, that protect the criminal rather than the victim and that now, with total shamelessness, invent affiliations out of “affection”. Judicial relativism has become an official doctrine. And Uruguay, which boasted of being a serious country, is paying the price

.

The protection of the elderly, so vaunted by the ruling party, is revealed to be a farce. When a vulnerable elderly person is manipulated, justice looks the other way if the manipulator carries the right flag. Biological children, who accompanied their father for decades, are treated as intruders. Greed disguised as “affection” is rewarded with millions. Is this justice? No. This is judicial looting

.

The damage has already been done. Uruguayans' trust in their courts has evaporated. Who, in their right mind, today makes a will in Uruguay knowing that a judge can annul it with a speech about “emotional ties”? Who trusts that private property and the will of the testator will be respected? No one.

That is why the solution can no longer be just procedural. The legitimate Henderson family will appeal, and hopefully they will win. But the underlying problem remains: Iris Vega Ottonello is still a judge. It continues to collect from the public purse. He still has the power to hand down more sentences like

this.

What then proceeds? Clear and constitutional legal avenues to remove her from office

.

In Uruguay, the dismissal of a first-instance legal judge like Vega Ottonello does not go through the Parliament (which can only politically judge Supreme Court ministers, not ordinary judges). The Constitution (articles 246 to 248) and the Organic Law of the Judiciary establish a precise and exclusive path within the Judiciary itself:

Immediate complaint to the Judicial Council: Any citizen, the Henderson family or their lawyers can file a formal complaint for serious violation of the law, manifest arbitrariness and indignity in the exercise of their functions. The Council opens an administrative file, transfers it to the judge and issues

an opinion.

Final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice: The SCJ is the one that has the exclusive power to dismiss by a majority of votes. This has already been done in dozens of cases where judges have been prosecuted for serious misdemeanors

.

Voluntary resignation: If she has a remnant of institutional decency left, the magistrate must submit her resignation today to the Supreme Court and avoid the embarrassment of a public dismissal.

In addition, if the sentence constitutes prevarication (criminal offence), criminal proceedings can be brought before the Public Prosecutor's Office, which, if convicted, automatically implies the loss of office.

It is time for the Judiciary to act with the same forcefulness with which the magistrate acted against the law. The Judicial Council and the Supreme Court of Justice must immediately open this proceeding out of manifest indignity, for gross violation of the Constitution and the Civil Code, and for the arbitrary exercise of

public office.

This is not about “political persecution”. It's about defending the Republic. When a judge replaces the law with his ideology, democracy becomes a clogged oligarchy. And Uruguay already has too many examples of that

.

Uruguayan society must wake up. Legislators who still believe in the rule of law have an obligation to denounce this scandal and demand that the Judiciary do its duty. The media that have not given in to progressivism must denounce it. Good citizens, who see the country they inherited crumbling, must demand that this farce be put to an end to this farce by filing the

appropriate formal complaints.

Iris Vega Ottonello cannot continue to be a judge. His tenure in office is a daily affront to the Uruguayan people. His sentence is not an error: it is a declaration of war on the principle of legality.

Let him resign. Or that they dismiss her through the means established by the Constitution itself and the law. But let him go. Right now.

Before the rule of law ends dying in a courtroom in Montevideo.