[ad_1]
This was going to be a decision that the plenary session of the Constitutional Court (TC) would take on Friday, however an extensive view of the request made by the President Sebastian Piñera To declare unconstitutional the bill approved by the House and that allowed a second withdrawal of 10% changed the plans.
After four and a half hours of allegations and questions from the ministers, the plenary session of the TC chose to leave the deliberation for today at 10.00 in the morning. Inside the TC it was commented that this is one of the most relevant decisions that they have had to make in recent years. In fact, this is how Piñera’s lawyer repeatedly pointed it out to him, Gaston Gomez, during his pleadings. Something that some ministers did not like due to the high pressure that was put on the requirement.
In fact it was the minister Maria Pia Silva who during his questions to the lawyers, when formulating their questions, recalled that the underlying issue, beyond a second withdrawal of 10% of the AFPs, was to define the constitutionality of the mechanism used by Congress to legislate this matter.
In fact, Piñera’s request, drafted by Gómez, stated that the constitutional conflict occurred on three points. That the violation of the Constitution was due to the fact that the parliamentary motion was approved with a quorum of 3/5 when it should have been 2/3, that transitory constitutional reforms cannot be used for permanent modifications and that social security matters is a exclusive power of the President. As the Minister of Finance said, Ignacio BrionesThe final objective was for the TC to define “the edges” that the Legislative Branch has.
Despite all the pressure and the constitutional scope of the requirement, In a fought vote, the plenary session of the TC chose to accept Piñera’s request by five votes to five, but with the casting vote of the president of the court, María Luisa Brahm. This was how the plenary session was lived today.
Today the ministers met telematically at 10:00 to begin voting on the agreement. As always, the vote is taken one by one starting with the newest minister and ending with the most senior magistrate.
Before today’s plenary session, there were only two antecedents. The vote for the admissibility of the request and the questions asked by the ministers to the lawyers who alleged. In the first act, the plenary session by five votes to five, but with the casting vote of the President Maria Luisa Brahm, chose to accept the request for processing. The votes not to admit were Gonzalo garcia, Nelson well, Jose Ignacio Vasquez, Maria Pia Silva and Rodrigo pica. The majority vote was Maria Luisa Brahm, Ivan Aróstica, Juan Jose Romero, Christian Letelier and Miguel Ángel Fernández.
In that resolution, the minority vote widely developed its point. The ministers García, Pozo and Silva stated that it was a “premature conflict in development with incomplete antecedents”, that “the solution of the conflict changed from the jurisdictional axis to legislative decisions of merit” and that “there is currently no a matter of constitutionality, the Constitutional Court not being an advisory body ”.
For his part, Pica assured that “to this date there is no text that can be subject to control, since the proposal was rejected and it is impossible for a human being and also for this court to predict whether in the future the mixed commission will reach an agreement or Except what would eventually be its specific text, which would be necessary to know if it is to be subject to constitutionality control, which would also have to be predictive and in advance, an exercise that in itself is questionable in a venue of contentious jurisdiction that requires a conflict real, current and precise ”.
Vasquez chose to separate his minority vote. There, among other things, he reproached Piñera for having processed a 10% second withdrawal project himself, but above all for having promulgated the first without problems and without having challenged it: “Paradoxically, before he promulgated a reform to the Fundamental Charter, which it generated the first withdrawal of pension funds on the same basis as the now questioned second constitutional reform as well as the legal initiative sponsored by that and already in the process of entering into force, omitting to require unconstitutionality before this Court.
The first to vote was Minister Pica. The magistrate, as indicated in his minority vote of admission for processing, rejected the requirement in all its parts. In his opinion, there is no conflict of constitutionality. So did Silva. For both, there is no merit to declare the unconstitutionality required by Piñera and the two criticized the arguments raised by the Executive.
Then came Fernández, a minister close to the ruling party and appointed by Piñera. The magistrate voted to accept the request. Later came the surprise. Vásquez, who did not want to accept the request for processing, voted in favor. There were always doubts regarding his vote, some were struck by it, but others not so much since, they say, the prior examination of admission for processing is different from the one carried out when the merits are analyzed. As soon as the processing of the request began, The Third PM He said that his vote, along with Romero’s, would be key and it was.
After Vásquez the votes continued without news. Pozo refused, Letelier approved, but when it came to Romero another surprise occurred.
Romero, who was about to admit it, announced his vote of rejection of Piñera’s request. In his argument, which was not fully understood by the ministers present, he assured that his decision was made after the allegations and that this influenced his decision.
At this point, all the pressure was off Brahm’s shoulders. The ministers García and Aróstica were not going to surprise with their votes. It was already common knowledge that the first rejected and the second welcomed.
Of Brahm – former head of the Second Floor during the first Piñera government, close to Renovación Nacional and designated in the TC by the president – it was only known that he used his casting vote to process Piñera’s request, but in view of the cause he chose for not commenting or asking questions of the attorneys. Finally around 2:15 p.m., Brahm announced his vote in favor of the requirement in all its parts.
Although the agreement has already been voted, what is relevant will be in the sentence. For that, the ministers have a deadline of Tuesday, December 29. There the arguments of the magistrates will be developed, the scope of the ruling will be fully understood and, above all, it is expected that the vote of the minority ministers will be widely developed.
