[ad_1]
It was forty minutes late, but they ended up showing up together anyway. The Minister of the Interior, Victor Perez, and his pair of Defense, Mario Overflows, arrived after 11:30 am at the República de Brasil school, in the Santiago commune, to participate in an activity and reinforce the message of the security measures adopted for the plebiscite.
The public staging of both was preceded by the discomfort of Desbordes as a result of the defense brief of the chief of staff – represented by the lawyers Mario rojas Y Alejandro Espinoza– by the constitutional accusation that the opposition is pushing against him. The concern also escalated to the President himself Sebastian Piñera, who led a meeting this morning with both to address the issue.
In the document, which was entered last night in the Chamber of Deputies and released Third, Pérez’s defense argues that the forces of order and security, that is, the Carabineros, do not depend on the Interior under a state of catastrophe, but on the defense chiefs, dependent on the Ministry of Defense. “By virtue of the provisions of the exceptional legal rules (…), certain members of the Armed Forces were appointed as heads of the National Defense, that they do not report to the Minister of the Interior and Public Security, but to the Ministry of Defense”, Says the writing.
The arguments took Desbordes by surprise, but also Piñera and the political committee. In fact, several in the government report that they found out “from the press” and described the episode as “Very serious”. Despite the fact that the Segpres was working in coordination with Pérez’s defense, the government says they were not aware of the details of the arguments in the brief.
The president’s annoyance, government sources explain, was mainly due to the fact that it was an unconsulted defense and that contradicts everything the government has done on this matter. This, since the former ministers Andres Chadwick Y Gonzalo blumel They never upheld that thesis and were adamant that public order is a spring for the Interior.
Likewise, the same sources say that, in the opinion of the President, with the arguments of the defense they began to shoot responsibilities everywhere and, therefore, to open flanks to the government. Piñera himself made it known in person to the head of the Interior, with whom he met before Desbordes joined. In the Palace they say that in that dialogue alone with the chief of staff, the President made him know his discomfort.
Anyway, In Interior they de-dramatize the facts and acknowledge that there was a dialogue between Piñera and Pérez, but they maintain that it was not a challenge and that it was in a good tone.
In addition, in the Executive, there was concern because some said that Pérez’s legal defense – which was presented days before the deadline to do so – opened a flank for the President, arguing that under a state of exception the defense chiefs depend on of the President. Likewise, They regretted that since the answer was already presented to the Chamber, there was little that could be done to correct it.
Thus, the episode became one of the first impasses between Piñera and Pérez, who are not friends or close and who, until now, have maintained a good relationship, but strictly labor, according to the government.
In Piñera’s appointment with Desbordes and Pérez, according to those who knew about its content, the Defense Minister raised his discomfort in this regard and transmitted that the episode generated concern, in addition, in the Armed Forces, just on the day they have to take control of polling places. And he stated that the episode also generated a stir within RN.
At the meeting, according to the same sources, it was maintained that they would go out together to the activity at the República de Brasil school and it was agreed that the head of the Interior would explain the arguments of the libel, emphasizing that the responsibility for public order is in charge indoor. “The only thing the brief does, which my defense attorneys propose, is to reiterate the legal norms applicable in this case and demonstrate the inconsistency of the constitutional accusation,” Pérez explained when asked about it. And about who is in charge of public order, Pérez replied: “It is only the transcription of a constitutional rule to show that those who wrote the accusation did not have the rigor to legally substantiate it.
Desbordes, for his part, chose to defend the Interior Minister and said that in some cases the security and order forces depended on Defense, and in other cases on the Interior. Likewise, he stated that the accusation against the chief of staff has no basis. “There is no legal basis to accuse Minister Víctor Pérez,” he said.
At the meeting with Piñera, it was also agreed that Pérez’s defense would present a “be present”, alluding to the fact that public order depends on the Interior and that they sought to account for the legal error in the libel of the center-left. That be present, according to the government, was being coordinated between Segpres and Interior.
The issue not only generated surprise in the government, but also splashed RN, a party in which Desbordes is a member and in which several leaders believe that the minister should assume a presidential candidacy.
Deputies close to the minister immediately conveyed their discomfort and even some warned that this could affect how the accusation is voted on. The latter, in fact, worries Palacio, because it can mess up the strategy of keeping the coalition aligned.
“It seems to me a lousy defense strategy to be avoiding political responsibility and, worse still, splashing or diverting attention, harming a minister from the coalition itself, such as Minister Desbordes,” said the deputy Jorge Duran, adding that the episode “leaves me in reflection on how to vote” the libel.
Its for Miguel MelladoMeanwhile, he indicated that “it does not seem to me that a minister who is accused of something comes out blaming another minister from another political party for what he is accused of.” And on how he will vote, he added that “I want to read both arguments in full: that of the prosecution and the defense.”
Andres Celis, for his part, said that “if this thesis is true, the accusers could argue that this responsibility could lie with the President of the Republic, because it is he who has all the powers according to article 42 and following of the Political Constitution”, while his pair Camilo Morán He stated: “I am surprised by what the minister and his defense do. Wrong focus (…). Hopefully this can be clarified at some point in the discussion of the prosecution.
