Through a statement published on your social networks, the Lima Bar Association (Cal) expressed her solidarity with the president of the Judiciary, Janet Tellodenouncing that it is the object of harassment by different sectors of political power. The pronouncement of the lime occurred after it was announced that the National Justice Board (JNJ) would initiate a disciplinary process against Tello. Sources of the Republic indicated that this process would be motivated by political sectors of the Executive and the Legislative, who see in Tello an uncomfortable figure for the exercise of power.
“The Lima Bar Association expresses its solidarity with the president of the Judiciary, DRA. Janet Tello Gilardigiven the obvious political harassment of what has been the object, under the pretext of a questionable legal interpretation in a labor process. It is worrying that, of the thousands of cases resolved by the Chamber that is integrated
“This type of disciplinary measures should not be used as political pressure mechanisms”
In its statement, Cal warned that the measure represents a threat to the independence of the Judiciary and, therefore, for democracy.
“The Lima Bar Association strongly rejects any attempt to undermine the independence of the Judiciary and the stability of its magistrates, fundamental principles of the rule of law. The decision of the National Board of Justice to initiate an immediate disciplinary procedure against the Dr. Tello and other magistrates of the Supreme Court, based on an alleged erroneous invocation of a repealed rule, generates concern in the legal community and in general citizens, “says the first paragraph of the pronouncement.
CAL statement on political harassment to Janet Tello | Source: lime.
The institution also emphasized that disciplinary processes should not respond to political interests.
“These types of disciplinary measures should not be used as political pressure mechanisms or as tools to weaken the independence of judges. Democratic institutionality requires unrestricted respect for the separation of powers, guaranteeing that jurisdictional decisions are adopted in a free environment of External interference, “he said.
The origin of the disciplinary process against Janet Tello
The immediate disciplinary process that the Jnj He has started against Janet Tello and four other supreme judges, with the intention of suspending and dismissed them, has their origin in a complaint filed by the former colonel of the National Police Julio Ramón Cadenillas Díaz.
In 2015, Cadenillas was removed from the service after incurring various infractions during an official mission in Arequipa. Despite having appealed in different judicial instances, his claim did not prosper. Finally, on July 19, 2024, the First Transitory and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected its appeal for not complying with the required requirements. Given this, the Exoph for official filed a complaint with the JNJ on November 4 of the same year, arguing that the judges incurred a “defective motivation” when based on an article repealed from the Civil Procedure Code.
Thus, there is the controversial reason that would lead to the president of the JNJ, Gino Ríos Patio, to propose on January 29, 2025 to initiate a disciplinary procedure of dismissal against the judges involved, among which is Tello Gilardi. The measure has generated controversy, since the immediate process is reserved for situations of severe inconduct that threaten the stability of the judicial system, which would not be evidenced in this case.
The possibility of suspending the president of the Judicial Branch For a complaint filed by a former colonel in retirement, he would send a worrying message to the judiciary: the need to align with the political interests that currently dominate the JNJ. This scenario could be interpreted as an attempt to pressure on the Judiciary to guarantee favorable resolutions to the Government of Dina Boluarte and the Congress, indicated by promoting laws that benefit criminal networks. The imminent decision of the JNJ could sit a dangerous precedent, affecting the independence and autonomy of the magistrates in the exercise of their functions.
