In private and in the framework of a brief ceremony yesterday they were sworn in as magistrates of the constitutional Courtfive of the six tribunes elected this week by the Congress of the Republic.
Francisco Humberto Morales Saravia was the first to take an oath before the head of the highest body of constitutional control Augusto Ferrero-Costa.
Subsequently, magistrates Luis Gustavo Gutiérrez Ticse, Helder Domínguez Haro, Luz Imelda Pacheco Zerga and César Ochoa Cardich did the same.
However, the swearing-in of Manuel Monteagudo Valdez was pending in compliance with article 13 of the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court, which establishes that “the function of magistrate of the TC is exclusive dedication” and “he is prohibited from holding any other public or private position. and exercise any profession or trade, with the exception of university teaching, provided that it does not affect the normal functioning of the Court”.
And it is that, according to spokesmen of the court, Manuel Monteagudo has yet to finalize his labor commitments with the Central Reserve Bank, for which he would be sworn in as soon as next week.
As reported, the head of the TC, Augusto Ferrero Costa, congratulated the new magistrates and urged them to strengthen democratic institutions, unity among all Peruvians, dialogue and the search for agreements and consensus that allow the growth and development of our country.
The new plenary session of the court, it was learned, will be officially presented next Wednesday, May 18 at noon.
THERE WERE NO IRREGULARITIES
On the other hand, parliamentarians from different benches such as Waldemar Cerrón (Free Peru), Jorge Montoya (Popular Renovation), Eduardo Salhuana (APP) and Wilmar Elera (Somos Perú), who participated in the special Commission that evaluated the candidates of the Constitutional Court , rejected the complaints of lack of transparency and alleged irregularities in the selection process.
This after the pronouncement of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which stated that it had received complaints and specified that any election process for members of the high courts “must be based on the merits, capacity, and integrity of its candidates, so as not to put their independence at risk.”