economic matters. While former President Carlos Lleras Restrepo and El Tiempo praised the agreement, it was criticized by the director of El Espectador who denounced the heavy participation of Congress in the future assembly and the limited room for citizens' input. Others - such as the pro-constituent assembly groups on the left - blasted the fairly rigid eligibility conditions and the exclusion of students, guerrillas, social leaders and indigenous peoples. These left-wing groups organized demonstrations for a "people's constituent assembly" on September 6. The FARC, who claimed to support a dialogue with the government, contended that the government's constitutional assembly would merely serve to pass reforms which had failed in Congress and reiterated their demands for an "autonomous and sovereign constituent assembly" which would draft a new constitution. Demobilized groups such as the PRT, MAQL and some fronts of the EPL cautiously welcomed some aspects of the decree but sought modifications in certain areas. Sentence 138 of the Supreme Court of Justice Decree 1926 was brought to the Supreme Court by several plaintiffs. The decree's advocates argued that it pertained to the organization of an electoral event and claimed that the Nation, the source of sovereignty under article 2 of the 1886 constitution, could exercise its constituent power notwithstanding articles 218 and 13. Critics of the decree, the court's record stated, hit it from several angles - those who claimed the anticipated reforms were elitist and limited in scope; and those who claimed that the decree was unconstitutional as it violated articles 218 and 13 (they also rejected preeminence could be established between articles 2 and 218). As with decree 927, the public ministry opined that the court should either inhibit itself from ruling on the decree (as it was a 'political act') or rule it unconstitutional. On October 9, in sentence number 138, the Supreme Court of Justice narrowly ruled decree 1926 to be constitutional with specific exceptions. The ruling created deeper divisions between the judges than their May ruling on decree 927, ultimately being approved with 15 votes in favour and 12 dissents (salvamentos de voto). The court found that the decree, taken in its entirety, had sufficient connections to the state of siege, for reasons similar to those presented in its May 24 ruling on decree 927. Considering article 218, the majority opined that the judge needed to consider the social reality (an argument already made in