[ad_1]
At 10:00 this Monday, the plenary session of the Constitutional Court (TC) to deliberate on the requirement formulated by President Sebastián Piñera to declare unconstitutional the bill promoted by parliamentarians and that allowed a second withdrawal of 10% of the AFPs.
The request, which was motivated by the Minister of Finance, Ignacio Briones, stated that the constitutional conflict occurred on three points: the approval of the parliamentary motion with a quorum of 3/5 when it should have been 2/3, that legal matters on social security are an exclusive power of the President and the use of a transitory constitutional reform for permanent modifications.
After deliberating there was a tie, five votes to five, the president of the TC then making use of her directing power, Maria Luisa Brahm. This is how Piñera’s request was fully accepted in its three points. To host were Brahm, Iván Aróstica, Cristián Letelier, José Ignacio Vásquez and Miguel Ángel Fernández. The latter was only to accept the exclusive initiative of the President in matters of social security and the quorum of two thirds.
For rejecting were Gonzalo García, Juan José Romero, Nelson Pozo, María Pía Silva and Rodrigo Pica. Romero’s vote surprised the plenary session, since the magistrate had voted in favor of accepting the process. Hours later, in the TC statement, it was noted that despite its decision, “it does not rule out that possible future constitutional reform projects may violate the Fundamental Charter.”
The arguments of the rest of the ministers of the minority vote were because “the constitutional reform bill to date lacks purpose; Article 127 of the Constitution is not affected, since it has adhered to its forms; there is no exclusive initiative of the President of the Republic regarding the constitutional reform law, and the social security of the withdrawals of funds is in the same circumstance as the recently approved Law No. 21,295 that authorized a second withdrawal ”.
In the opinion of the former president of the TC Marisol Pena, this decision blocks any parliamentary attempt to legislate a new early withdrawal of pension funds: “The criterion is established that one cannot incur in what the doctrine calls a misuse of power, that is, use a tool provided for in the Constitution, but to achieve a totally different objective for which it was established.”
The constitutionalist Thomas JordanOn the other hand, it considers that the scope of this decision is complex and can only be analyzed with the ruling: “This decision gives more power to the President, because deep down it is taking away the power to reform Congress.”
More about constitutional Court
The drafting of the majority vote will be coordinated by Aróstica and Fernández and it must be ready, at the latest, December 30th. This decision does not affect the first withdrawal of 10%, of which Piñera did not want to request its unconstitutionality, nor the second, since it was presented by the Executive.
The government has indicated that there are at least 11 projects from the same origin being processed in Congress that would be unconstitutional.
The decision generated objections in the Legislative Power -mainly on the part of opposition parliamentarians- which they attributed to Brahm’s decisive role and his political link with the President. The president of the organization is close to RN, she was the chief adviser of the Second Floor in Piñera’s first term and was appointed to her position by the Head of State.
“The ‘third camera’ again does its thing. The TC decides with the vote of its president, Piñera’s former adviser, that a constitutional reform enacted by the same government is now unconstitutional. New Constitution will have to change this delegitimized institution “stated the senator Juan Ignacio Latorre (RD). More cautious was the president of the Senate, Adriana Muñoz (PPD), who assured that he will wait to know the scope of the ruling, although he admitted that “This opens a new chapter in the relationship of the Senate, the Chamber and the Executive, and the President of the Republic, in matters of processing constitutional reforms.”
The president of the Lower House Constitution Commission, Matías Walker (DC), questioned the determination and warned that with this the exercise of constituent power derived from Congress is in doubt, “Generating a very conflictive situation, which makes any constitutional modification depend on the signature of a President of the Republic who is with 7% approval.”
The government valued the decision and in a statement stated that “It sets an important precedent and means a solid safeguard of the validity of our institutionality and the rule of law.”
