News Article: Dissolution of the Congress: the decision of Martín Vizcarra under the constitutional view

Source: El Comercio (Perú)

The announcement of President Martín Vizcarra to dissolve Congress has opened a debate on whether the measure is constitutional. Five of the seven specialists who answered the calls of this newspaper reject the president's decision.

The former president of the Constitutional Court Óscar Urviola pointed out that Vizcarra has made this decision outside of article 134 of the Constitution, which states that the president is empowered to dissolve Congress "if it has censored or denied his trust to two councils of ministers." Urviola points out that the denial of the second question of trust cannot be tacitly interpreted.

The constitutionalists have the same opinion Luciano López, Víctor García Toma, Natale Amprimo - who had already left their opposition to this measure - and Alejandro Rospigliosi. “The trusts are not inferred, they have to vote,” said López.

López and Urviola called Vizcarra's decision a "coup d'etat." "I consider this decision to be disastrous and set a negative precedent in our republican history that was thought to have been overcome after more than 25 years," Urviola said.

Meanwhile, García Toma said that the president made the decision invoking article 134 of the Constitution, which establishes as a budget that there are two denials of trust. "But the second negative has not occurred," he said.

For the former magistrate of the Constitutional Court, Congress could accuse Vizcarra of breaching article 117 of the Constitution that states that the president cannot dissolve the Congress, unless the scenarios referred to in article 134 indicated above have occurred.

"If the president does not correct [this situation], the first problem will be the requirement of loyalty to the Armed Forces and the National Police, which should not intervene in this matter," he said.

In that sense, Urviola invoked that "the Armed Forces are not complicit in this constitutional violation." Otherwise, he said, they will have to pay the consequences of this decision. He added that congressmen can refuse to leave the Legislative Palace, but if they are evicted, they can meet anywhere in the country to continue meeting.

Alejandro Rospigliosi said that this situation has been reached by “an irresponsibility of the Executive and the Legislative; both have acted foolishly. ”

- Minority in favor—

Omar Cairo defended the legality of this measure. He points out that the issue of trust raised had to be reviewed before the election of Gonzalo Ortiz de Zevallos as a CT magistrate.

Cairo states that, in this case, the rejection of the issue of trust has not been tacit, but that Congress declared its approval impossible by voting on the election of the candidates. Therefore, it was denied.

The constitutionalist Milagros Revilla pointed out that, although the position of those who reject the decision is understandable, there has been a denial of the second issue of trust. "We are facing an anomalous situation, but the Constitution must be interpreted according to the political context," he said.

Revilla said that the situation exceeds the formalities that in other circumstances would have had a customary course, because the context has been extremely violent.

Speaking to TV Peru, the former president of TC César Landa said that Vizcarra does not violate the Constitution by establishing deadlines for the approval of the issue of trust.

This newspaper tried to collect the opinions of the constitutionalists Samuel Abad and Elena Alvites, but it was not possible.

-Who rules-

In parallel to the dissolution, the Legislative suspended Vizcarra for a year and took an oath to Mercedes Araoz as the president in charge. Urviola points out that the TC must be the one who interprets who the legitimate president is, after the Legislative proposes a contest of competence, which has already been approved in plenary.

This resource is intended for the TC to determine who has acted constitutionally. The TC would even be able to dismiss President Vizcarra if he determines that he acted unconstitutionally, according to Urviola. The Armed Forces and police have the power to enforce the decision of the highest interpreter of the Magna Carta.

Garcia takes dissent. He points out that the TC is not in a position to make this decision, as some magistrates have an expired mandate, there is an internal division and the appointment of Ortiz de Zevallos does not cease to generate controversy. In addition, this decision could take between three and four months.

For him, all that is left is for the Organization of American States (OAS) to send a commission that talks with all the parties in order to seek an understanding in the short term. The Peruvian State is obliged to comply with the decision issued by this entity, otherwise Peru's participation before the OAS is suspended, which generates serious sanctions

Personal opinion: Thankfully, it hasn't reached the same levels as 1992 (with Fujimori sending his soldiers to invade the Congress) but just because a president hasn't closed the news or used the military doesn't mean that he isn't a dictator (I mean, if the Congress is "dissolved" and the Supreme Court has almost all of its magistrates with their terms "ended" that means that the only person truly in charge is the Executive) but, so far, it has been calm so far and the OAS already decided to celebrate the idea of elections.

Really hoping to be wrong here.