[ad_1]
Senator Alejandro Navarro (PRO) paused in his recovery process, after the operation he underwent last November, to announce that he will vote in the discussion of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement of Trans-Pacific Partnership, also known as TPP- 11, after the government of Sebastián Piñera put it into immediate discussion in the Upper House.
“The government’s priorities are unusual. When there is hunger, anguish and poverty in Chilean homes, it immediately discusses to legislate TPP-11, which represents more looting, more surrender and a blank check to make and undo with our resources. My vote against will and will be no and no, “said Navarro.
The parliamentarian for the Biobío Region indicated that he is preparing the text with which he will make the presentation before the Constitutional Court and indicated that he is gathering the signatures for his entry.
The arguments presented by Navarro that support the reservation of constitutionality, say a relationship, between several points, to the fact that chapters 9 and 28 of the Treaty provide for submission to international arbitration tribunals, and that, for the legislative approval of such norm, “the Legislative power should have been authorized by an express constitutional rule, “he says.
In addition, he argued that TPP-11 by granting jurisdiction to international courts to review cases of foreign investors for their investments in Chilean territory, modifies the Organic Constitutional Law of the Organization and Powers of the Courts of Justice, and that “by modifying the jurisdiction of the Chilean courts, before sending the TPP-11 to the National Congress, the Supreme Court had to be heard beforehand, because this is what is peremptorily established in Article 77 of the Constitution, a procedure that was not carried out. “
Likewise, the PRO senator stated that Chapter 20 of TPP-11 contains provisions that privilege trade and investment over care for the environment. “A Chilean law or other provision, of an environmental nature, can be considered as a ‘disguised’ restriction on trade and investment, for which it suffers from fundamental unconstitutionality, for violating N ° 8 of article 19 of our fundamental law, that recognizes the right to live in a clean environment free of contamination, “he said.
[ad_2]
