[ad_1]
The heads of the bench of the Chamber of Deputies agreed that The Corporation will defend before the Constitutional Court the project that seeks to allow a second withdrawal of 10 percent of the pension funds.
The decision was confirmed by the head of the PPD bench, Raul Soto, who commented that “in a committee meeting our request was approved for the Chamber of Deputies, institutionally, to go to the Constitutional Court to defend the constitutional reform that allows the second withdrawal of 10 percent of AFP without fine print, which already it was declared admissible in the Chamber and approved transversally by 130 deputies “.
“We have to defend our work against this onslaught by the Government of President Sebastián Piñera to try to overthrow it”, said.
During the afternoon of this Sunday the Government confirmed that it will appeal to the Constitutional Court in order to declare unconstitutional the initiative presented by the parliamentarians, before which they have already presented a counterproject.
With opposition votes, the heads of the bank of the Chamber of Deputies and Deputies agree that the Corporation will defend before the TC the constitutionality of the project for the second retirement of pension funds.@Cooperative
– Jorge Espinoza Cuellar (@espinozacuellar) November 23, 2020
Senate position
From the Senate, his vice president Rabindranath Quinteros confirmed that the initiative will be put as the first priority in the table this Wednesday, despite the position of the Executive.
“The government wants to hijack the project of Congress, taking it to the TC, so that we prioritize its own initiative, which is restrictive and insufficient. It seems that the government is more interested in taking care of the AFPs than in allowing Chileans to access their own savings, “he stressed.
“The President says that with this request to the Constitutional Court, the government fulfills its promise to respect the constitution and the laws. And why did it not resort to the TC when the first withdrawal was approved? Did the government fail to do its duty then? “Quinteros questioned.
For the parliamentarian, “the partial withdrawal of pension funds is explained by the urgency caused by the pandemic. If the government had taken other types of measures to guarantee the population’s social security, such as a guaranteed decent emergency income, it would not We would be discussing whether or not people can use their pensions. “
In relation to a possible defense against the TC, he assured that “of course we will join, we will defend the prerogatives that Congress has. This is a project almost the same as the first project that was approved in July this year, where the government did not question it. “
Lawyer questions Executive decision
Lawyer Thomas Jordan, who was contacted by Deputy Matías Walker and Senator Ximena Rincón, stated that “when the President promulgates the law in the Constitutional Reform, the promulgation has to do with his agreement with the text. The President has 30 days to have vetoed, did not veto and, therefore, when that term passes and he promulgates the law, he expresses his agreement with the bill approved by Congress. “
“The court would also have to mention what is the legal consequence that the President has promulgated a law that, eventually, could according to the Court or the President himself … So that is the contradiction of the argument,” he said.
[ad_2]
