Chamber asks for more time to present the acts of pension reform

The discussion about the pension reform is still entangled in the Constitutional Court and entered into confusing land, after the president of the House of Representatives, Julián David López Tenorio, sent an official communication requesting more time to deliver the minutes of the extraordinary sessions in which the norm was discussed, A procedure that has become a central piece within the examination that advances the high court.

The trade, dated September 12, is aimed at the General Secretariat of the Court and responds to the order issued on September 9 by the speaker magistrate, Jorge Enrique Ibáñez, in which he insisted that the Chamber should clarify whether the minutes corresponding to the sessions of June 27 and 28 had been effectively approved and with what quorum.

See here: Comptroller found alleged patrimonial detriment in aerocivil for $ 5,670 million

López, however, requested an extension in the delivery of the documentation, claiming that the volume of the information required more time to be consolidated.

The minutes under the magnifying glass

It should be remembered that the controversy for the minutes is not new, since since July, the Court Constitutional had ordered that formal certifications be sent on the approval of the documents, so the order of July 22, and then that of September 9, indicated the need to specify whether these minutes were approved, how many votes were obtained and on what date.

The background of this requirement is that on June 27 and 28 the House of Representatives was convened to extraordinary sessions in order to correct a procedure vice that had been warned in the legislative process on behalf of the absence of due deliberation. However, complaints arose about the lack of decision -making quorum in those sessions.

For example, the representative Katherine Miranda, of the Green Alliance, sent to the file records that indicate that on June 27 only 77 congressmen were present, an insufficient number to make decisions according to the Constitution. According to Miranda, despite the lack of quorum we proceeded to the announcement of the pension reform, calling into question the validity of the actions.

Also read: Lower economic growth, the price of leaving the fiscal crisis

Likewise, it is striking that at the beginning of September, the president of the Chamber had publicly affirmed that the minutes had already been approved in the plenary of August 26 and that they had been sent to the Court and even in their X account X. fair”.

However, the letter sent on September 12 to the Court contradicts that version Initial, since there, López admits that he has not yet delivered the complete information and requests an extension to comply with what is ordered by Judge Ibáñez, so the trade reflects that there are still gaps in the certification process, which keeps uncertainty about the legality of the legislative procedure.

In the hands of the Constitutional Court is the future of this social bet of the Petro government.

Chatgpt image

The final pulse

The pension reform file, Law 2381 of 2024, is in the final stage of review in the Constitutional Court. The presentation of Judge Jorge Enrique Ibáñez will be presented in the next few days before the Plenary Chamber, which must decide whether the legislative process met the requirements or if, on the contrary, it was incurred in insubasable vices.

The doubts about the validity of the minutes and the quorum with which decisions were made in June have become the axis of the controversy, given that the fate of a reform that the Petro government has defended will depend on its clarity ceitherIt is one of its main social achievements, but that faces a judicial process full of stumbling.

Other news: Ani opens the old variant while unlocking the Bogotá – Villavicencio road

For now, the truth is that the Chamber has not delivered all the requested documentation and that the High Court must evaluate, based on that information, if the pension reform is sustained or if it must be returned to Congress; While uncertainty continues to mark the path of a law that, despite being approved on paper, still fails to consolidate its legal legitimacy.