The senator of the National Renewal Paulina Núñez proposed calling a new election to decide under what modality the constituent process should continue in case the Rejection wins; whether by forming a new convention, or convening a team of experts, or, ultimately, conceding all constituent power to Congress. Meanwhile, the academic and lawyer Carlos Peña agreed with President Boric by clarifying that the drafting of a new proposal is only possible through a fully elected assembly, and this in accordance with the provisions of the constitutional reform that took place to the process.
In this way, the senator for the Antofagasta region reacted to the president’s statements, who on Friday expressed his position regarding a possible adverse result of the Approval in the exit plebiscite scheduled for September 4, which would demonstrate, according to the parliamentarian, who has become aware that “the Rejection option is taking advantage.”
“We believe that as citizens chose who was going to write a draft of the new Constitution,” said the senator in statements collected by Emol. “In this case, if the Rejection wins, it could also be an alternative: that the citizens choose between a group of experts, between Congress -for example, a bicameral commission of deputies and senators-, and also between a new group of constituents”, she added.
However, Paulina Núñez urged the president to maintain an attitude of openness before the various scenarios, since that way he will be able to “give an answer to both alternatives that are so legitimate,” he indicated.
Meanwhile, the government spokesperson, Camila Vallejo, introduced new ingredients to the debate stating that the Rejection will only contribute to introducing a greater degree of uncertainty, while delaying public policies aimed at satisfying the great demands of citizens.
“Starting a new constituent process, which is a slightly more uncertain, longer path, probably postpones many fundamental changes that citizens have been demanding for many years, such as the consecration of fundamental rights, but we believe that it is the right thing to do from the point of view of view of what the majority of citizens established on October 25, 2020, ”said the head of the Minister Secretary General of Government to La Tercera.
Another who referred to this complex post-plebiscite scenario is the lawyer and academic Carlos Peña, whose reading of the constitutional reform that gave way to the constituent process left no room for doubt. This scenario raises two questions: Should a new Constitution be written? And under what modality should the process continue?
To the first question, Carlos Peña maintained that “the final paragraph of article 142 of the current Constitution provides that if the majority opts for Rejection, ‘this Constitution will continue to be in force.’ Does this mean that the current Charter could continue unscathed, without any changes, or with minimal changes, as some enthusiasts have said? ”, The lawyer asks in his Sunday column.
And his answer was categorical: “No. Of course not, since there is a mandate from the citizens (the result of the entry plebiscite) that decided to have a new Constitution. That mandate (a true political-constitutional obligation) does not remain without effect because the text of the Convention is rejected. The legal obligation born of the plebiscite will remain pending.”
Regarding how to continue the constituent conversation, Peña affirmed that “the answer is found, if it is not modified, in the final paragraph of article 142 of the current Constitution: the way to comply is to repeat the process!”
