The decision of government of Pedro Castillo of ordering mandatory social tenure in Lima and Callao and extending the state of emergency with the consequent restriction of a series of fundamental rights was rendered ineffective. This does not mean, however, that the measure ceases to be unconstitutional, as noted by prominent constitutionalists.
For the former president of the Constitutional Court (TC) Víctor García Toma, the supreme decree issued shortly before midnight on Monday presents “serious vices of unconstitutionality” since it violates the principles of rationality, reasonableness and proportionality.
no sustenance
He also warned that it is incongruous that if what is sought is to combat a group of people that promotes the paralysis of the city through the seizure of means of transport, the government adopts precisely measures that will lead us to that same scenario. .
SIGHT: The controversial statements of the ministers that caused a stir on social networks
“That doesn’t make logical sense, furthermore, there must be concordance and harmony between means and ends and certainly this paralysis is not going to be averted by paralyzing the city even more,” he stressed. He added that the hasty way in which the measure was executed also generated a situation of refusal of some entities and municipalities that openly called on citizens to disobey the immobilization.
A similar critical view is that of the constitutionalist Samuel Abad, who observed that the part referring to tenure is unconstitutional “because it does not respect rationality and violates certain basic principles.” “An absolutely exceptional measure like this must be given with real support and, consequently, it cannot be dictated overnight.
If one revises the supreme decree there is no adequate justification; it refers to reports that are not public and are not even synthesized to have an idea of the seriousness of the measure, even when it is said that there is approval from the Council of Ministers, we can see that the signatures of all the ministers are not there, “he said.
For his part, former Justice Minister Fernando Castañeda said that the government provision has not only violated the Constitution but also the parameters established by the Constitutional Court on the state of emergency.
knew that
The Ombudsman’s Office presented a habeas corpus to annul the social immobilization.
The lawsuit will be analyzed by the judge of the 6th Constitutional Court of Lima, Rocío Rabines, and although it will not take effect now, it will set a precedent for the future.
