Cepeda, the son of then-communications minister Fernando Cepeda, for President Barco. Based on a detailed analysis of the constitutional jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Cepeda had concluded that the 1886 constitution could be reformed through a plebiscite or constituent assembly, as long as it was convened by the people. On March 1, 1990, the National Registrar informed students that while he could not order the counting of the votes for a constituent assembly, neither could he ban the seventh ballot from being deposited. In short, the séptima papeleta would not affect the validity of votes for the six official contests. The unofficial count showed over 2.2 million votes in favour of a constituent assembly, out of over 7.6 million votes cast in the election. Decree 927 and the 27 May Referendum On May 3, 1990, President Barco issued Decree 927, ordering the electoral authorities to count the votes for an official (but non-binding) vote convening a constitutional assembly, to be held alongside the May 27 presidential election. The decree claimed that intensified violence had created "a popular clamour for institutions to be strengthened". It made reference to the success of the séptima papeleta in March, stated that the popular will should be recognized and warned that thwarting the "popular movement in favour of institutional change" would weaken the country's political institutions. The government claimed that it was acting to facilitate the expression of the popular will. The contents of the decree were largely the fruit of conversations between the government, the Liberal party and the two rival factions of the Conservative party. The parliamentary left was excluded from the talks, but they nevertheless welcomed decree 927. On the other hand, the decree was criticized by the Movimiento Estudiantil por la Constituyente (Student Movement for the Constituent), a rival of the Todavía podemos salvar a Colombia student movement, this one largely led by students from public universities. They criticized the use of the term 'constitutional assembly' rather than 'constituent assembly', fearing that the former was a way for Liberal party 'barons' to seize control of the process. Several Conservative politicians likewise criticized this aspect. The decree was challenged in court, with its opponents claiming that there was no relationship between the state of siege under which the decree was proclaimed and the measures it provided and that it violated article 218 of the constitution (as well as article 13 of the