The plenary of the 2020-2021 Congress could not ratify, in a second vote, the constitutional reform that prevents people sentenced in the first instance for intentional crimes to apply for public office. This is because the seats of Podemos Peru and Union for Peru changed their positions with respect to the first vote, and the required 87 votes were not reached.
The second vote could not take place because the benches led by Daniel Urresti and José Vega showed their opposition, despite the fact that in the plenary session on Sunday 5, they supported the rule in the first vote. At the close of the debate, the required 87 votes were not available, so the President Manuel Merino (Popular Action, Tumbes) He suspended the session until “a next opportunity.” “We have a historical responsibility and we have to make a difference from other parliaments,” he said.
| Parliamentary group | First vote | Position in the debate on the second vote |
|---|---|---|
| Popular Action | In favor | In favor |
| Alliance for Progress | In favor | In favor |
| Frepap | In favor | In favor |
| Popular Force | Against | Against |
| Union for Peru | In favor | Against |
| We can Peru | In favor | Against |
| We are Peru | In favor | In favor |
| Purple party | In favor | In favor |
| Wide Front | In favor | In favor |
| Not grouped | In favor | In favor |
“No person (sentenced), from the next elections, may run for popular election. They will not be able to run for the presidency of the Republic, vice presidencies, Congress, Andean Parliament, nor for positions of governors or mayors. It is an important step in the fight against corruption, “he said. Omar Chehade (Alliance for Progress, Lima), Chairman of the Constitution Commission, after emphasizing that nothing could be changed in the formula approved in the first vote.
Martha Chávez (Popular Force, Lima) He presented a previous question after questioning that this issue be prioritized over the constitutional reform over the elimination of the figure of immunity. “[Martín] Vizcarra asked that this topic be approved [impedimentos] to pave the way for who will be your saviors. First we have discussed immunity and then came the impediments “, accused the Fujimori legislator and insisted that the reform on immunity is debated first.
Added to this speech Daniel Urresti (Podemos Peru, Lima), who accused an agreement between the Executive Power and Congress. “Here they only want Popular Action and App to apply, and if it is only the AP, the better,” he accused. Faced with questions, Luis Valdez (Alliance for Progress, La Libertad), in charge of conducting the plenary session in his capacity as first vice president, recalled that it was the Board of Spokespersons – with 79 votes – that included the issue on the plenary’s agenda.
For his part, Lenin Checco (Broad Front, Apurímac) He said that this reform was vital for the fight against corruption. Gino Costa (Purple Party, Lima) He also emphasized the urgency of carrying out the second vote so that the impediment for the 2021 general elections can be applied, in addition to remembering that in the first vote, eight out of nine benches supported the legal formula.
“This norm has 16 months of maturation elaborated by a group of specialists, collected by the Executive and presented to the previous Congress. It was voted but could not be ratified [la disolución del Congreso]. This period has enriched the norm ”, explained Costa.
All opposition to the reform came from the benches of Fuerza Popular and Podemos Peru. The Fujimorista Carlos Mesía (Lima) He insisted that the principle of the presumption of innocence is being violated. “If a person is sentenced in the first instance and is prevented from applying, but then he is acquitted in the second instance, he will go to the Inter-American Court to ask for compensation as the terrorists did. Because of this Parliament, the State will end up paying millions ”, said.
“A wife can denounce a person for food and in two months he will be sentenced, so he cannot be a candidate,” he exemplified. Carlos Almerí (Podemos Peru, Lima Provinces)while your colleague Cecilia García (Podemos Peru, Lima) He asked to prioritize the debate on other topics such as the freezing of debts in banks and the release of ONP funds.
The answer came from the Broad Front bench. “Podemos is following the Popular Force speech. They are putting their personal interests ahead because their participation in the elections of 2021 is in question ″, stated Lenin Bazán (La Libertad).
Roberto Chavarría (Union for Peru, Junín) He said that the norm in question could leave “abandoned” the social leaders who have the right to represent through public office. UPP spokesperson, José Vega (Lima), He even accused that the reform had not been consulted before jurists. “They believe that they are going to win the elections with this reform, there are already laws that stop the sentenced and corruption has not stopped. We want a total reform of the Constitution ”he added.
At around 10:00 pm, the projections showed that there were not 87 votes for the second vote. This because several congressmen were on leave. In the debate it was clear that Fuerza Popular, Podemos Peru and Union for Peru would vote against the reform. Knowing that the votes were not enough, Urresti challenged the Board of Directors to submit the reform to the second vote.
Ricardo Burga (Popular Action, Lima) criticized Urresti’s “despair”. “What you have is fear and fear of facing justice. You have already faced Popular Action and we beat you [en las elecciones municipales 2018], and I am sure that if we meet again, we will win again ”, Held,
| Parliamentary groups | Membership | Available votes | Licensed congressmen |
|---|---|---|---|
| Popular Action | 24 | 24 | Projecting that Manuel Merino, president of Congress, use his vote. |
| Alliance for Progress | 22 | 20 | 2 |
| Frepap | 15 | 12 | 3 |
| We are Peru | 11 | 11 | 0 |
| Purple party | 9 | 9 | 0 |
| Wide Front | 8 | 7 | 1 |
| Not grouped (Arlette Contreras and Rosario Paredes. The latter separated from the AP while the investigations against her are lasting) | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 91 | 85 | 6 |
Without barriers
In the controversial session on Sunday 5, the aforementioned constitutional reform obtained 111 votes in favor and 14 against. In order for it to become law and enter into force in the 2021 electoral process, Parliament needs to hold a second vote with a qualified majority of 87 votes.
The approved reform indicates that “The persons on whom a conviction issued in the first instance, as authors or accomplices, for the commission of intentional crime are prevented from running for popularly elected positions”.
Likewise, it is specified that “are prevented from exercising public function, by designation in positions of trust, the persons on whom a conviction is handed down, issued in the first instance, as authors or accomplices, for the commission of intentional crime”.
In the original opinion, which the Constitution Commission presented before the plenary, the formula stated that the impediment only for people convicted, in the first instance, of intentional crimes with penalties of more than four years. In the plenary session on Sunday 5, this four-year-old barrier was removed at the request of the bench of Somos Perú and others that supported it.
| Clauses that are incorporated into the Political Constitution of Peru | Legal formula |
|---|---|
| 34-A | People who are subject to a conviction issued in the first instance, as authors or accomplices, for the commission of intentional crime are prevented from running for popularly elected positions. |
| 39-A | Persons on whom a condemnatory sentence issued in the first instance, as perpetrators or accomplices, for the commission of intentional crime are prevented from exercising public office, by appointment in positions of trust. |
Previous resistance
Initially, the benches of the Alliance for Progress, Podemos Peru, Union for Peru and Fuerza Popular blocked the debate on this reform in plenary. It was in the session on Friday, July 3, where the spokesmen for the four benches refused to sign the virtual exoneration so that the text would be included in the plenary’s agenda.
The blockade of the aforementioned parliamentary groups was maintained throughout the session, which lasted until 7:30 am the following day, Saturday, July 4. Such as reported this JournalThroughout the day, negotiations and political calculations prevailed, such as the APP that conditioned its signature in exchange for support for its constitutional reform project, which provided for an investment of 6% of GDP for the education sector. In the end, neither project was approved that day.
All constitutional reform requires a qualified vote (87 votes) in two consecutive legislatures. In this case, the two votes were required to take place between the first term – which ended on July 5 – and the second – which started on July 6. In March, the plenary approved a norm that states that Congress can introduce electoral changes only until September, so if the first vote on the impediment reform did not take place until July 5, the terms would not be reached.
Against the clock, this reform was approved at 11:09 pm on Sunday the 5th, less than an hour after the close of the first term.
But this is not the first resistance. The reform had already been approved in the first vote, in July 2019, by the previous dissolved Congress. The second vote should have taken place in the next legislature that started in August of the same year, but until September 30, when the Parliament closed, the text was never put up for debate in plenary.
–
