[ad_1]
A tie and the president of the TC María Luisa Brahm resolved to accept the procedure, making use of her casting vote..
That is what was obtained today in the plenary session of the Constitutional Court (TC) when analyzing whether or not the request entered by President Sebastián Piñera, seeking to declare unconstitutional the constitutional reform for the second withdrawal of 10% of the funds, was accepted. for the AFP presented by a group of parliamentarians. Although, the bill of the Executive has already been promulgated that allows to turn these monies, in the same way the libel presented by the Executive will be processed. As the vote was 5 for accepting the procedure and 5 for not accepting, the position of President Brahm prevailed, who allowed us to go to the next stage in which it will be decided whether or not to declare La Moneda’s onslaught admissible.
By accepting the procedure was Brahm, Iván Aróstica, Juan José Romero, Cristian Letelier and Miguel Ángel Fernández. For not accepting the procedure, he voted José Ignacio Vásquez, Gonzalo García, Nelson Pozo, María Pía Silva and Rodrigo Pica.
Those who were not to accept the libel for processing argued that the conflict was no longer current, since after being rejected by the Senate and returning to the Mixed Commission, it had not continued with the procedure. For this reason, say those sources, the discussion would be out of date.
More about constitutional Court
Those familiar with the discussion that took place today at noon in an extraordinary plenary session maintain that the decision was contested and vote by vote. Thus, one by one, from the newest to the oldest of the ministers, they gave their points of view regarding Piñera’s requirement and whether the requirements by law to accept the procedure were met. It should be remembered that last week, the TC suspended this resolution pending documents that it requested from Congress regarding the voting and processing status of the initiative originated by opposition deputies. In parallel to that, the Executive’s initiative was approved and already enacted, while the reform presented by opposition congressmen fell in the Senate.
After this vote, The admissibility was reviewed and obtained a unanimous vote. Allegations are expected next week and hence the ruling for this government requirement.
Does it make sense to go ahead if the requirement goes against a reform that has already been rejected in Congress? The bet is to enter the fund, say those who welcomed the process, and discuss whether or not the parliamentarians can promote a reform like this, already in view of the idea of a new offensive for a third withdrawal of funds due to the economic ravages of the pandemic.
