In what the national newspaper La Nacion termed “an historic vote,” 38 lawmakers opted to remove Judge Fernando Cruz from his post on the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Chamber (Sala IV).

Then, Gloria Valerin, an expert in parliamentary procedure, dropped the bomb–the vote should have come before Oct. 19 if they really wanted to get rid of the judge.

It appears that Cruz’s appointment expired on that date, meaning if he were not removed before Oct. 18, then he would automatically continue on the powerful court body.

Reps from five parties — National Liberation, Libertarian Movement, National Restoration, Costa Rican Renovation and a part of the Social Christian Unity all voted not to re-elect Cruz to another eight year term.

“I’m the first magistrate not to be re-elected,” said the stunned Cruz, “I don’t have any idea — I don’t know (why), let’s say — because the session in the Appointment Committee was very calm and I thought I had the committee’s unanimous recommendation for re-election.

Only 12 lawmakers, mostly from Citizen Action Party (PAC), voted for his continuance as judge. PAC floor leader Yoland Acuña snorted, “National Liberation brought lawmakers nearly on oxygen tanks to vote.”

Restoration and Renovation are Evangelical parties. Renovation party Deputy Justo Orozco said Fabio Molina of Liberation came to him lobbying for Cruz’s defeat. Orozco said he prayed for guidance.

Unity floor leader Luis Fishman approached him to lobby in favor Cruz’s continuance as judge. Wide Front Party Deputy Jose Maria Villalta also favored re-election.

“He’s a very independent judge,” said Villalta, “This is an attempt of the Arias brothers to appropriate power in the Sala IV.” He is referring to ex-President Oscar Arias and his brother Rodrigo, candidate for Liberation nomination for president in 2014.

As with the Supreme Court in the United States, for some years grumbling has been heard, especially from National Liberation Administrations, accusing Sala IV judges of making laws instead of interpreting the constitution.

Some of the 38 lawmakers who voted against Cruz — 38 being two-thirds majority, the least that could choose not to re-elect him — may have considered a vote to dismiss as a show of power to signal the judges that, unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, their terms are not life time ones

But none of the lawmakers who voted essentially for termination of Cruz gave a specific reason. The vote may have been historic but Ticos may have to wait for historians to explain the unprecedented vote.