Two cases from the same investigation but with abysmal differences

Despite the fact that Guillermo Lasso and Sebastián Piñera have been named in the journalistic investigation of Pandora’s papers, there are constitutional differences that separate both processes.

The investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), on tax havens and offshore companies, splashed three presidents of the region, including the president of Ecuador, Guillermo Lasso and Chilean President Sebastián Piñera.

Although the two judicial processes are being dealt with by the National Assembly, in the one case and, by the Lower House of Chile, in the other one; These are two completely different procedures starting with the constitutional regulations of each country.

“The conduct that is being imputed in the Chilean Congress is not the same that is intended here with President Lasso,” said constitutional lawyer Ismael Quintana, referring to several comments that try to resemble these cases.

Lasso vs Piñera in Pandora Papers

On the one hand, the case of Guillermo Lasso within the Pandora papers is framed in that the Executive, according to the revelations of the ICIJ investigation, would have had 11 ties with offshore companies or tax havens in Panama and the United States before being presided overtea.

The Constitutional Guarantees Commission of the Assembly, after an investigation process of the case, determined in its last report that Guillermo Lasso did not comply with art. 4 of the Organic Law for the Application of the Consultation on tax havens that prevents any candidate for a popular election to be a beneficiary of entities of this type; as well as it would also be incurred in the inability established in art. 7 of the same rule, for the general elections of 2021, which would lead to a ‘scenario of crisis from governability‘.

Under this argument, the Commission established that “the constitutional breach of the provisions of Article 130, numeral 2 of the Constitution of the Republic is configured due to a serious political crisis and internal commotion,” which would lead to a possible dismissal.

On the other hand, the Pandora Papers revelations also involved the President of Chile, Sebastián Piñera, at mention irregularities regarding the sale of the mining project ‘Sunday’ that belonged to the family of the president.

For this reason, on November 9, the Chamber of Deputies (opposition majority) approved a constitutional indictment (impeachment) against you that could end in the disqualification from holding public office or in his dismissal a few days after the end of his mandate.

According to the Political Constitution of Chile, Article 52, empowers the Chamber of Deputies, to oversee the President of the Republic for “by acts of his administration who have seriously compromised the honor or security of the Nation, or openly infringed the Constitution or the laws (…) ”, and it is precisely on this ground that the deputies made this decision.

Now, this process must be analyzed by the Senate who is the one who has the last word for judge to Sebastián Piñera.

The differences

For the constitutionalist Ismael Quintana, these two processes are different and it is impossible to compare the constitution of Chile with that of Ecuador because there are open and differentiated grounds for political prosecution.

“In the case of Piñera, a conduct produced in the exercise of the position is being investigated, that is, that he would have used his capacity as President of the Republic to force the investment of goods or money in tax havens for his own benefit and that of third parties ”, explains Quintana, while the President of Ecuador is accused that at the time of the registration of his candidacy he would not have dissociated himself from investments in tax havens.

In this sense, Constitutional Guarantees Commission did not speak of a political trial for President Lasso because art. 130 of the Constitution, which states that the Assembly may proceed to impeachment for: crimes against the security of the State, crimes of concussion, bribery, embezzlement or illicit enrichment; and crimes of genocide. Lasso’s issue does not fall under any of these grounds.

This is why Quintana remarks that these are completely different processes and that they cannot be compared due to the fact that they come from the same investigation. “In the case of Lasso, unlike Piñera, there is talk of an alleged inability that occurred at the time of registering the candidacy”.

Pandora vs Previous Leaks