In another commentary on November 5 in La Tribuna titled "Mas Consultas" ("More consultations") Orellana rejects other consultations that members of the Congress have been proposing should happen before they make their decision, and for which they have now said they will allow until the 17th of November. It is worth reading Orellana's entire opinion piece for what it says about legal flaws in the Tegucigalpa Accord and its attempted implementation:
The San Jose-Tegucigalpa Accord proposes that there be many consultations in relation to the restitution of constitutional order.
The Supreme Court of Justice is mentioned, a question that was undertaken in an earlier article. It doesn't mention the rest, but some have insisted in pointing to the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney General of the Republic.
The Public Prosecutor was created to assume the representation of society in the fight against impunity. He should act, in consequence, when some crime has been committed, to identify the responsible party and to accuse him criminally in the Courts of the Republic, with the goal that he should be condemned with a sentence based in the Law. His functions are exercised in a strictly penal order.
What would be, then, the point of consulting him about the Accord? About what extremes would the Public Prosecutor pronounce? For his competence, he only could give an opinion about penal matters, but in the abstract, because it is prohibited to disseminate the private matters of the topics that he knows, whether in the phase of investigation or those before the Courts. So that it would not be legal to solicit a report from him about the cases that he has brought against President Zelaya.
The Accord, on the other hand, is of a political nature. And the only thing that would have justified consultation would have been the inclusion of Amnesty, but both parties renounced that.
In conclusion, the Attorney's office has nothing to do with the Accord about which some would like it to make a pronouncement.
The Attorney General of the Republic, for his part, commands, in conformity with the Constitution, the legal representation of the State. To this institution belongs, in the name of the State, buying or selling of immovable property, to sue or to defend against judicial suits and to appear in all matters that the law authorizes to guard the interests of the State.
The Accord does not involve any patrimonial matter of the State, directly or indirectly. Even less does it refer to judicial themes. There does not exist any matter about which the Attorney General could express himself to elucidate for those who have to decide about the restitution of constitutional order.
The Accord signals that the conflict, by its nature strictly political, can only be concluded by the National Congress, the only exclusively political organ, taking the situation of the Executive power back to the situation in which it was encountered before the 28th of June.
The message of the totality of the members of the San Jose-Tegucigalpa Commission is very clear: propose that the National Congress rescinds the Legislative Decree issued the 28th by means of which President Zelaya was unconstitutionally fired, so that he can continue his constitutional mandate until the 27th of January of 2010, the date on which the new President of Honduras will take possession, product of the elections that will be carried out the 29th of November of this year.