The constitutional lawyer Omar Cairo he referred to the request of the President of the Republic, Pedro Castillo, before Congress to appear this Tuesday, March 15 in plenary in order to deliver a message. Given this, cairo emphasized that it is not a strategy of the president to avoid answering questionsas has been suggested even in a statement issued by the Avanza País benchand ensured that the head of state is not obliged to answer any question.
“I have seen in some media that they are confusing things a lot, because it has been said that the fact that Castillo has requested to appear on Tuesday would be a strategy to, in some way, avoid being asked questions. But that is a mistake. Castillo is going to go to Congress on Tuesday to give a message and then he will leave, something like a message to the nation. You can’t ask him questions and he’s not obliged to answer.” he said in dialogue with La República.
He also mentioned that even if he is summoned by Congress before voting for an eventual vacancy, he would not have to answer any questionsbut only to give his discharge on whether or not he considers himself morally incompetent.
“On the other hand, if the vacancy motion against Castillo is admitted on Monday, the president will have to appear before the plenary session of Congress to discharge him. But in that case you can’t ask questions either. In other words, the president himself or his lawyer can go on behalf of him and say that he does not consider himself morally incompetent for such reasons. Nothing more. After that he leaves, ”he asserted.
YOU CAN SEE: Avanza País considers it “impertinent” that Pedro Castillo wants to appear before Congress
cairo not only did he mention that there is no obligation to respond by the president castlebut neither does Congress have the power to ask him questions.
“Congress is not empowered to ask the president questions. Ministers can only be asked questions through interpellation. It’s not like what happened with Aníbal Torres. That does not work. Even if the vacancy motion is admitted and some congressman commits the impertinence of asking the president questions and Castillo also commits the impertinence of responding, if 87 votes are reached and it is decided to vacate the president, he can allege that he has been an ambush and the Constitutional Court could annul the vacancy”, he pointed out.
The constitutionalist commented that in the event that any of the congressmen takes the power to ask the president questions and he decides to answer, could argue later that it was an ambush or a coup if they manage to vacate itsince he would not have been given an interpellatory statement, as is the case with ministers.
”If it is decided in such circumstances, the vacancy would be delegitimized and it could be argued that it is a coup. But that can not be. If the president responds, that would become a greengrocery. Also, it could be considered an ambush because he would be responding out of nowhere. Not even with the ministers, to whom questions can be asked, does he proceed in this way. They have to provide them with an interpellatory statement before appearing before Congress, ”he added.
Finally, he explained that the president can only respond in the event that an investigative commission calls him to testify as part of the investigations into an alleged crime.
”The only way the president can answer questions is when he is subpoenaed by an investigative commission. Its the only thing. Because there he does not go to talk about the homeland, but to answer for the alleged crime for which he is investigating, ”he clarified.
