The former president considers that the court has acted “with its back to the country” and refers to the protests
MADRID, 20 (EUROPA PRESS)
The Constitutional Court of Peru has rejected the jurisdictional claim presented to determine the legality of the use of permanent moral incapacity as a mechanism for the motion of presidential censure, applied on November 9 against the former president of the country Martín Vizcarra.
Through its Twitter account, the court has reported that four of the magistrates have considered that “there is nothing to resolve” about the presidential vacancy, while three of the judges, including the president, Marianella Ledesma, have defended an “improper use” of the instrument of the motion of censure in the case of Vizcarra.
Ledesma has regretted the decision adopted by the majority of the Constitutional plenary session and has assured to be “aware that we have lost a historic opportunity as a court” in an interview on RPP radio.
On the other hand, Judge Ernesto Blume, who has voted in favor of the dismissal of the claim, has indicated in statements to the aforementioned media that the claim did not correspond “because the matter had been removed”, after adding that permanent moral incapacity it is “a concept that should not be clear.”
“It is an open clause that enables Congress to carry out its various functions,” Ledesma has detailed.
Vizcarra has “deeply” regretted the court’s decision, since he considers that he has acted “with his back to the country.” “Millions of Peruvians claiming in the streets, lives given to defend democracy and nothing happened for them, what a disappointment!” He wrote on his Twitter account.
The lawsuit was filed by the prosecutor for Constitutional Affairs of the Ministry of Justice, Luis Huerta, for the High Court to determine how to interpret the cause for permanent moral incapacity that is provided for in the Peruvian Constitution and applied in the case of the former president.
Huertas said in the defense of the lawsuit that the process was “undue and unconstitutional”, before which he asked the magistrates to take action to “establish reparation measures.”
The prosecutor has regretted the words of Judge Blume and has pointed out the risk of future conflicts, such as the protests that took place in the country after the Vizcarra departure, for not having resolved the controversy.
“The Court has not lived up to the demand or requirements of the national reality,” Huertas has considered.
DISMISSED AT THE SECOND
Vizcarra successfully faced a first motion of censure last September after being accused of an alleged crime of influence peddling within the so-called ‘Richard Swing’ case, but on November 9 he did not obtain the support of Congress and a presidential vacancy against him was approved.
The motion of censure, which at first did not seem to be going forward, came after three aspiring collaborators of the Lava Jato special team, including a former senior official at Obrainsa – linked to the Brazilian Odebrecht- -, affirmed that Vizcarra would have received from this company about 550,000 euros in bribes in exchange for an irrigation project in 2013, and a series of public contracts for the construction of a hospital.
After Vizcarra’s departure, the then president of Congress, Manuel Merino, assumed the interim presidency, a fact that sparked protests in the Peruvian streets, marked by police repression and the death of two protesters. Under pressure, Merino resigned from office, after which Francisco Sagasti has been appointed by the Peruvian Lower House as the new president.
In his inauguration speech, Sagasti made reference to the long-awaited resolution of the Constitutional Court on the legality of the motion of censure and expressed his desire that it “allow a better use of checks and balances between the powers of the State.”