Former President Dina Boluarte presented an amparo action before the Judiciary with the objective of annulling the resolution of Congress that approved her vacancy due to permanent moral incapacity. The appeal requests that the magistrates declare the parliamentary act that removed her null and void and allow her to recover her legal status prior to the process.
listen to the newsText converted to audio
Artificial intelligence
The lawsuit claims that Parliament violated his right to due process. The defense affirms that the former president did not have a real space to exercise defense, that the principle of equality was not respected and that the resolution that vacated her damaged her honor and good reputation. Therefore, it asks the judicial system to review the entire procedure.
WE RECOMMEND YOU
DELIA ESPINOZA LIVE AND PRESIDENTS IN CHAPEL | WITHOUT SCRIPT WITH ROSA MARÍA PALACIOS
In addition, Boluarte requests that the vacancy process be backdated to Official Letter 078-2025-2026-ADP/PCR, sent on October 9. For the defense, from that point the irregularities began that would invalidate the subsequent procedure. He maintains that the legislative decision was made without guaranteeing minimum guarantees.
The amparo action raises an alternative claim: that the constitutional justice system issue a binding interpretation on the requirements that should govern any presidential vacancy in the country. The former president’s defense considers it essential to establish clear standards to avoid similar arbitrariness in the future.
Dina Boluarte: these are the arguments presented by her defense
The demand for Dina Boluarte argues that the Congress used as support for the vacancy a set of facts that were not part of a concluded process, but rather of preliminary investigations or journalistic reports included without contrast. According to the appeal, this practice violates a basic principle of constitutional control: Parliament’s decisions cannot be based on conjectures or information at the preliminary stage. The document emphasizes that since there was no formal accusation or tax accusation, Parliament constructed a “moral incapacity” without evidentiary support.
Another point that develops the defense is the lack of internal and external motivation of Resolution 001-2025-2026-CR. The amparo action states that the document approved by the Plenary does not detail why the cited events reach the standard of indignity necessary to remove a sitting president, nor does it explain the proportionality of the measure. For the defense, Congress only listed media scandals—Rolexgate, the “El Cofre” case, trips abroad and cosmetic surgeries—without demonstrating how these events constitute a permanent inability to hold office.
The lawsuit also questions the way Parliament conducted the session in which the vacancy was approved. The defense points out that the Plenary Session used an “express” procedure incompatible with Article 89-A of the Regulations, since it admitted, debated and voted on the motion in a continuous sequence that prevented the former president from reviewing the imputed elements or presenting evidence. Furthermore, he maintains that Congress failed to respond to the defense’s observations presented before the debate, which, according to the appeal, constitutes a autonomous rape of the right to parliamentary due process.
