The law of Emergency in disability It has become one of the most sensitive and conflicting points of the Argentine political agenda. After weeks of tension, the Congress managed to reverse the presidential veto imposed by Javier Milei, marking the first legislative defeat of his government.
The rule, which seeks to regularize payment to providers, update tariffs and guarantee non -contributory pension financing, was ratified by the Chamber of Deputies and now awaits its confirmation in the Senate. Given this scenario, the Government He has already begun to design a judicial strategy to avoid its implementation.
The vote in Deputies It was overwhelming: 172 votes in favor, 73 against and 2 abstentions, leaving the presidential veto without effect. The opposition managed to gather the two thirds necessary to insist with the law, which forced the ruling party to activate a new front: the judicial one.
In the Casa Rosada two possible ways are analyzed to stop the norm: one is to question the legality of the legislative session, claiming that the call exceeds the powers of the Congress; The other, more likely, is to denounce the lack of financial forecast to apply the law.
The central argument of Government It is that Congress cannot impose standards that imply expenses without guaranteeing financing sources. According to the Congress Budget Office, the fiscal impact of the law ranges between 0.25% and 0.45% of GDP, which represents about three billion pesos.
In an attempt to soften social rejection, presidential spokesman Manuel Adorni announced that the government “is considering” an increase in benefits destined for people with disabilities. As he explained, this measure would be possible thanks to the savings obtained after auditing pensions due to poorly granted disability.
Justice enters the scene
The conflict has already reached the courts. In a recent ruling, the Federal Court of Campana declared the presidential veto invalid in a specific case, after an amparo presented by the parents of two children with developmental disorders. Judge Adrián González Charvay argued that the veto represented an “obvious discrimination against people with disability”And that violated international commitments on human rights.
Although the ruling has a limited reach, it marks a judicial precedent that could open the door to new claims throughout the country. The magistrate even appealed to the opinion of the Inter -American Court of Human Rights, which considers care as an essential and enforceable human right for those in high dependence situations.
Follow us in Google News And in our channel of Instagramto continue enjoying the latest news and our best content.
