Last February 9, the president of Congress, Maria del Carmen Alvaheld a controversial meeting with nine congressmen and other national political figures, where, according to the weekly Hildebrandt in its thirteen, the way to constitutionally vacate the president peter castle. Faced with this, a response from the ruling party was not long in coming, so the parliamentary Margot Palacios (Free Peru) filed a constitutional accusation against the 10 involved.
Among the factual foundations, the recent meeting of the legislators in a luxurious hotel in Miraflores and the plans that would have been drawn up in such a discussion were pointed out. In addition, well-known passages of national politics were mentioned that extolled the opposition to the Government and even called for violence against the head of state.
According to the document presented on February 12, the events that took place in the Miraflores meeting would be focused on overthrowing the current government, which was legally elected, based on changes in the Magna Carta. In this way, they would “weaken the presidential figure in order to obtain the overthrow of the president, first manufacturing figures of legal appearance by changing the Constitution in order to obtain its illicit purpose.”
According to political analyst louis nunesthe process filed by Huaman Palaces it would have to run its course, but it would not see a positive future. Also, he specified that the Friedrich Naumann Foundationaccused of sponsoring the meeting of provacancy congressmen, would enjoy a good reputation and it would not be among her plans to promote the impeachment of the president.
“I think it’s a wrong position, because I don’t think a foundation with so many years in Peru is dedicated to conspiring with this government or any other (…) It seems to me that the congresswoman exceeded herself. I understand that there is an agenda, some exhibitions that were held and a fellowship lunch, as I imagine (that) the people of Peru Libre (also) have many fellowship meetings, assemblies”, he commented in conversation with The Republic.
The Free Peru bench announced that it will promote a motion of censure against the president of Congress, María del Carmen Alva. Photo: Carlos Contreras/LR
He also stated that the position of the parliamentarians involved in the provacancy meeting corresponds to the opposition and would have nothing to do with the nature of the event that brought them together in the well-known venue: “The congresswoman (Margot Palacios) should see that the positions these congressmen have have nothing to do with the meeting held last week in a hotel in Miraflores. It is their position as congressmen from the beginning of the mandate. (…) Members of Congress are free to give their opinion, I don’t think it gives rise to such an accusation.”
YOU CAN SEE: Condori appoints a veterinary doctor as advisor to the Minsa
There is a constitutional infraction committed by Alva, says expert
For his part, the constitutionalist Omar Cairo -in dialogue with The Republic– stated that from what happened at the meeting at the Casa Andina hotel it can be concluded that the president of Congress, Maria del Carmen Alva, did commit a constitutional violation by threatening the freedom of expression and information that are recognized in article 2, paragraph 4, of the Political Constitution of Peru. An infraction that would be a cause for impeachment against the head of Parliament and that can be sanctioned with suspension or disqualification for up to 10 years.
The expert refers to what was revealed by the audios broadcast by the weekly Hildebrand in its thirteenwhere Alva is heard complaining about the publication of a report on the incident between the activist and the mayor of Ocoña, Marilu Gonzales, at an event held in Parliament. All this within the framework of the meeting of opposition parliamentarians in the aforementioned Miraflores hotel. What happened was rejected – through a statement – by the National Association of Journalists of Peru (ANP).
“From the events that occurred at the Casa Andina hotel, my impression is that the president of Congress is included in an infraction of the Constitution consisting of threatening freedom of expression and information, which appears in the content of the audio that has been diffused. Violation of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment, which is a procedure regulated in Articles 99 and 100 of the Constitution, which can be punished with dismissal, expulsion or even disqualification of the perpetrator of the violation,” he explained.
Constitutionalist Omar Cairo warns that Alva would have committed a constitutional violation during the meeting of opposition parliamentarians at the Casa Andina hotel. Photo: The Republic
YOU CAN SEE: Lawsuit against Palacios announced for constitutional complaint against Alva and 9 congressmen
On the constitutional complaint of Margot Palaciospresented before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Accusations of Congress, cairo warns that this type of sanctions depend exclusively on political will in Parliament. If they really want to impose a sanction, it will have to be expressed through the votes of the congressmen. If there is no will, it would be difficult to sanction a constitutional infraction.
“The president of Congress has incurred in a constitutional infraction that I have just described. If that infraction appears in the complaint (by Margot Palacios) and is proven, it is not enough, because the sanctioning decision must have at least 87 votes in plenary. For that to happen, there would have to be the political will to sanction a constitutional infraction by a majority of Congress that reaches those votes. If that will does not exist, that infraction will remain without sanction”, concluded.
