The president José Jerí defended before JEE Lima Center 1 his performance in the television interview that led to an accusation for violating the political neutralityby highlighting We are Peru. According to the document, his responses do not constitute an act of proselytism and, therefore, he requested that a sanction be ruled out. He stated that his statements were part of a journalistic conversation and not an action intended to influence the elections 2026.
The president maintained that his participation was limited to answering specific questions from the interviewer. He stated that the mention of We are Peru It occurred in a historical and personal context, with no intention of directing the citizen vote or promoting electoral advantages. For this reason, he rejected that his comments have had political impact or have broken the principle of neutrality required of public officials.
YOU CAN SEE: José Jerí appoints Cinthia Ramírez, daughter of a former APP congressman, as head of the IRTP
In his defense, José Jerí He also questioned the report from the JEE technical area, considering that the accusation is based on “subjective” interpretations and lacks concrete evidence. He argued that the document does not demonstrate how his words could favor a specific party nor does it explain how these would constitute an act of propaganda during an electoral period.
The defense of the head of state asks that it be “declared that there is no merit to attribute responsibility to him”, since, according to the defense, the neutrality rules do not prohibit all political references, but only those aimed at influencing the vote. Jerí states that his conduct does not fit into the sanctionable assumptions and that the analysis must be strict and proportional.
YOU CAN SEE: Government reaffirms that it will not forcefully enter the Mexican Embassy to arrest Betssy Chávez
José Jerí: these are the arguments of his legal defense before the JEE Lima Centro 1
The president’s defense José Jerí He maintained that the president has a communicative function inherent to the position and that, therefore, he cannot be sanctioned for expressing opinions in public spaces. He alleged that the political neutrality It does not prevent him from explaining current events or answering questions about his career. He indicated that an absolute restriction would violate his right to freedom of expression and would affect his role as spokesperson for the State.
Another central argument is that Jerí would never have invoked his position of power to favor We are Peru. His team affirmed that the questioned phrases refer only to his past as a congressman and activist, and not to his current status as president. For this reason, he ruled out that the interview constitutes an official activity or an act aimed at positioning a political alternative within the framework of the elections 2026.
The head of state’s defense pointed out that there is no objective element that demonstrates an attempt to influence the electorate. He indicated that the report that supports the accusation only transcribes fragments of the interview without proving a real electoral impact. Furthermore, he recalled that the jurisprudence of the JEE requires clear evidence to determine political favoring and that, in this case, no concrete benefit has been demonstrated for the organization in question.
