On the fourth of July this year, the outgoing president of Congress, Maria del Carmen Alvasigned agreement no. 110-2021-2022/MESA CR, which establishes that the members of the Board of Directors will keep their benefits until six months after leaving office.
The mentioned benefits consist of protection of a Police non-commissioned officer, use of a vehicle and the corresponding fuel, as well as a driver, for each congressman of the Table.
Although these benefits were approved in 2009, in 2019 they were repealed by the management of Daniel Salaverry.
The first vice president, Lady Camones, requested that his signature be withdrawn from said agreement. In addition, he renounced said benefits because “he did not consider them necessary for his person.” On the other hand, Congressman Henry WongSecond Vice President, declare: “If the previous ones benefited, why are we going to resign??”.
Parliament issued an official statement justifying Alva’s decision to restore benefits. “The replacement of this agreement responds to the publicly known death threats received by the president of Congress and the third vice president,” indicates the document.
In this regard, the former senior officer of the Congress and specialist in parliamentary law Cesar Delgado states that, although the restitution is legal, “the issue is one of public ethics.”
“If there are no circumstances that warrant the reestablishment of these benefits, the decision would lack legality. And if there is no imminent need for that decision, this would constitute an excess and political imprudence because it leads to a worsening of the discredit of the representative regime in our republic”, adds the specialist.
Congresswoman Ruth Luque He expressed his disagreement with said agreement and specified that it should have been consulted in other instances of Parliament, such as the Board of Spokesmen.
César Delgado, parliamentary lawyer
“The likelihood of the threat must be clarified, not from a legal point of view, but rather an ethical and political one. The annulment of benefits could only emanate from a judicial instance.”