After it was revealed that Dina Boluarte will not have a pension for life. A debate was reopened: Should all former presidents obtain a lifetime pension? Four experts explained to La República whether this right should be extended to all former presidents. For now, the law states that to enjoy this benefit they must not be constitutionally accused or have a sentence.
listen to the newsText converted to audio
Artificial intelligence
Martín Ueda-Vice Dean of the College of Political Scientists of La Libertad
The lifetime pension has a reason for being: to protect the presidents. A president in her term of office is prone to multiple mishaps that will impact her life once her term ends. However, there is one factor that is ruled out: the president’s experience. It has been forgotten that the most important position a person can have within their country is to be president; the pressure and constant decision-making that it has on millions of citizens.
WE RECOMMEND YOU
TROY BURNS with JULIANA OXENFORD | PROGRAM for 12/29/25 | The Republic – LR+
This trajectory anywhere can be valued and it is normal that many former presidents earn much more giving advice, talks and conferences in their country and even in other countries – with income being much greater than their pension.
So, the life pension, given the circumstances of our environment, is not necessarily the only condition where the president can afford. If the president may not be able to work independently, it is a clear example that his capacity within the government has been poor; Then we have to reflect on the suitability of the presidents.
Emilio Noguerol – constitutional lawyer
Former presidents should not receive a lifetime pension. Once their mandate has concluded, the functions they perform, even linked to their public status, can no longer be considered part of the state administration nor is there any reason for them to continue being financed by citizens. Liberal democracies were consolidated, precisely, as a reaction against estate privileges.
The Constitutions of 1933 and 1979 assured former presidents an economic income through their incorporation into the Senate, conditioning it on the continuity of public service and accountability from the Legislature.
After the elimination of the Senate, this logic was perverted with Law No. 26519, which grants former presidents a pension equivalent to the total remuneration of a congressman, suspended only in the event of constitutional accusation.
Therefore, since an accusation has not yet been filed against Boluarte, she could receive her pension, contrary to what was stated in the technical report of the Labor Advisory area of Congress.
The denial has been based on the fact that she was not elected by popular vote, the period did not end and she was vacated, alleged grounds for inadmissibility that are not provided for in the aforementioned law.
Furthermore, article 111 of the Constitution establishes that, together with the president, the two vice presidents are elected in the same way, with the same requirements and for the same term, so it is incorrect to point out that Boluarte was not elected by popular mandate or to ignore that the succession of the vice president turns him into a constitutional president who assumes functions in full, by virtue of article 115 of the Constitution.
In our constitutional model there is no figure of interim or interim president, so Congress errs by introducing these extralegal criteria. If you do not want to grant him the benefit, then the constitutional accusation should be raised, there are plenty of reasons, otherwise his right to equality before the law will be violated. An amparo action could settle this controversy.
In any case, more than two hundred years ago taxpayers stopped financing kings and courtiers; It is time to repeal this incongruent law and put an end to the greed of those who do not see the presidency as an opportunity to serve but to serve themselves, even after their term has ended.
Karla Gaviño – professor of Public Management at the Universidad del Pacífico
Law No. 26519, published in August 1995, establishes that former Constitutional Presidents of the Republic enjoy a pension equivalent to the total income of an active Congressman, noting that this right is suspended when Congress has formulated a constitutional accusation against them, unless a court ruling declares them innocent. Thus, the Law does not contemplate other reservations for its application, so additional requirements, exceptions or interpretations established by the Congress of the Republic can always generate controversy.
However, from an ethical, moral and political point of view, different considerations emerge that validly question the correspondence of the tenor of the norm with the current national situation. The 30 years that have passed since the publication of the Law are not a minor issue, especially in light of the constant presidential changes in the last 9 years, which is why its review and modification through another law or norm with the rank of law becomes pertinent, to include other complementary criteria, which allow its application with sufficient predictability to avoid legal and political controversies.
Carlos Casas – former Vice Minister of Economy
Being president is a high responsibility and there must be compensation. If he does not finish his term it is because Congress does not make a good evaluation (which is quite subjective). I think there could be several criteria for determining the lifetime pension. First of all, there should not be a sentence for criminal acts that have been committed during the exercise of the Presidency. On the other hand, vice presidents or presidents of Congress who assume the presidency of the Republic due to the vacancy of the elected president should only receive a lifetime pension in a proportion equivalent to the time they exercise power. For example, if the power is exercised for 2 of the 5 years, you should receive 2/5 of the amount.
If the crime for which the vacated President is accused is for wanting to subvert the democratic order, the right to a life pension would automatically be lost because with his actions he shows that he does not care about the rules that apply and therefore he should not have the right to any compensation.
The idea of pensions in the broad sense is to compensate a person who fulfilled the responsibilities of the position adequately. The judicial issue in the case of Presidents who do not finish their term can work. The idea would be to have clear rules for granting the lifetime pension to avoid subjectivity that can affect the decision.
