UPDATE: I neglected to include page 2 of the document, which includes the signatures of congresswomen Edna Carolina Echeverría Haylock and Elvia Argentina Valle Villalta. As soon as I get to a computer with an graphic editing program, I will include that too.
[Note: Scanned signature page below]

Tegucigalpa, Honduras
October 12, 2009

Dear Congressman/Senator:

We the undersigned members of the National Congress of Honduras send you a cordial and attentive greeting.

Our country, Honduras, faces its biggest challenge since the return to democracy in the 1980s when, on June 28, 2009, a group of civilians and members of the armed forces used military force to illegally depose the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, who was violently and arbitrarily detained and exiled, consummating the coup d’etat that has subjugated and repressed our entire society.

In its efforts to consolidate their power, the coup plotters have unleashed an expensive lobbying campaign that aims to persuade US public opinion that no coup against democracy took place in Honduras and that all their actions were carried out in conformity with the law. This argument now has little force as it has collapsed under its own weight. But despite the weakness of the original argument, a study by the U.S. Library of Congress backs the thesis put forth by the coup plotters. However, the aforementioned study is contradictory and suffers from a series of errors and biases that disqualify it as a correct and objective analysis of what has happened in our country.

The study recognizes that no procedure for impeachment exists in the Honduran Constitution and asserts that Congress “implicitly interpreted” the Constitution when it automatically transformed its authority to “disapprove of the conduct of the executive”—a censure measure of sorts with no legal consequences—into a procedure for impeachment. This assertion is erroneous. There is ample precedent within the Supreme Court of Justice establishing that: “The ultimate and definitive interpreter of the Constitution of the Republic is the Supreme Court through its Constitutional chamber. ” Article 72 of the Law of Constitutional Justice stipulates the express and exclusive authority of the Constitutional Chamber to interpret the Constitution and this is manifest in each and every ruling issued by said tribunal. To take one example, the first ruling concerning the matter of who is responsible for interpreting the Constitution, handed down by the Constitutional Chamber on May 7, 2003, categorically established that, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers, the National Congress lacks the authority to interpret the Constitution.

Although Congress attempted to ignore this ruling of the Supreme Court—refusing to authorize its publication and approving other laws that contravene it—it is still in effect insofar as its judicial implications are concerned. Since the Supreme Court issued this ruling, the National Congress had not attempted to interpret the Constitution again.

It is important to emphasize that four years after this historic ruling of May 7, 2003, the current de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, asked the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional a constitutional amendment that prohibited him from running for president, arguing that Congress had overstepped its powers.

While it is perfectly clear that the National Congress lacks the authority to legitimately interpret the Constitution, the Library of Congress study also erroneously asserts that interpretations of our Constitution can be implicit. Under none of the twelve constitutions Honduras has adopted since its independence from Spain has an implicit interpretation of the Constitution, or of any law adopted to implement the Constitution, ever taken place. Interpretations have customarily been explicit, stating clearly what law has been interpreted and explaining the legal implications of the interpretation. It is worth clarifying that in decree 161-2009, in which the legislative branch deposes president Zelaya, there is no explicit mention on the part of Congress whereby the authority to “disapprove of the conduct of the executive” is interpreted as an impeachment procedure.

We regret that in the course of its research for this analysis, the Library of Congress only interviewed the lawyer Guillermo Perez Arias, who in Honduras is not considered an academic authority on the subject of constitutional law, and neglected to consult other experts on the subject. By choosing to only interview Perez Arias, who has also publicly stated his support for the coup, the Library of Congress has severely undermined the balance and objectivity that form the basic normative criteria of any academic and journalistic inquiry.

In light of the above, we the undersigned, all members of the National Congress, ask you to support any initiative that would allow the return to the democratic and constitutional order of our country by means of the reinstatement of the legitimate president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya Rosales, in accordance with the San Jose Accord, which we consider the best alternative to resolve Honduras’ current political crisis.