The political party Peru First filed a complaint with the Special Electoral Jury (JEE) against the president of the Constitutional Court (TC), Luz Pacheco Zerga, for alleged violation of the principle of electoral neutrality and improper interference in the 2026 general election process.
According to the complaint, the judge issued public statements in the media in which she maintained that the impediments to applying for corruption crimes remain in force even when there is judicial rehabilitation. For Peru First, These statements ignore precedents of the Constitutional Court itself and show anticipated criteria on electoral situations that are in process.
“The immediate cessation of any public demonstration that, directly or indirectly, interferes with, conditions or attempts to influence, favor or harm a political organization or candidate is ordered, especially when it involves sub judice decisions before the bodies of the Electoral Justice System,” they demand in the document.
Likewise, Vizcarra’s party recalled that the Constitutional Court has established, in various amparo rulings, that judicial rehabilitation fully restores political rights and that it is not constitutional to apply perpetual impediments to rehabilitated citizens.
YOU CAN SEE: Elections 2026: JEE declares inadmissible registration of People First presidential plan
Luz Pacheco affirms that Mario Vizcarra would have impediments to apply
The president of the TC, Luz Pachecomaintained that Mario Vizcarracandidate for the presidency and the Senate for Peru Firsthe would face impediments to participating in the 2026 elections due to the embezzlement sentence against him. Although this resolution was approved and enforced, the judge affirmed that the TC maintains in force the criterion that restricts the nomination of people convicted of corruption crimes.
In dialogue with Canal N, Pacheco addressed the position of the JNE, which has defended the right to political participation.
“The previous panel by majority determined that people who have been convicted of this type of crime, even if they are rehabilitated, cannot participate. In this college, lawsuits have been filed, but for the crime of terrorism. It was determined that if they are rehabilitated, they do have the right,” he noted.
Along these lines, he specified that said criterion has only been applied to cases linked to the crime of terrorism. However, he pointed out that it cannot be ruled out that a possible lawsuit would allow Vizcarra’s situation to be specifically reviewed.
“I would not be surprised if this reaches the TC, but in principle I declare that the crime (embezzlement) was present in previous lawsuits in which it was established that they could not apply. We will have to look at the specific case because not all of us in the magistrate always agree. If the constitutionality of a norm has already been validated, we must respect it,” he added.
