The government seeks to clarify interpretations of Article 117 before the Constitutional Court.

In a show of firmness and institutional defense, the head of the Cabinet, Gustavo Adrianzén, responded to criticism and justified the recent decision of the Executive Branch to file a jurisdictional claim before the Constitutional Court (TC). The aim of this action is to challenge the interpretation that the Public Ministry and the Judiciary have given to Article 117 of the Constitution, which establishes the circumstances under which a president of the Republic can be accused during their term. This measure is set against a backdrop of political tension and ongoing confrontations between the different branches of government, which have created an atmosphere of uncertainty and concern regarding the respect for the competencies of each institution. The ministerial resolution 151-2024-PCM, which led to this claim, was approved in a session of the Council of Ministers and published on May 22. During the press conference that followed the meeting, Adrianzén emphasized that the purpose of the claim is not to turn President Dina Boluarte into an untouchable figure, but rather to clarify and delineate the specific circumstances under which a president can be subject to accusations. "We are not doing this with President Boluarte in mind, but for any future president," he stressed, highlighting the importance of establishing a clear precedent for democratic functioning in the country. The controversy arises from the multiple investigations that have been initiated against Boluarte, linked to the deaths that occurred during protests and other high-profile cases. The prime minister argued that these investigations are significantly interfering with presidential functions, creating a scenario in which the president is forced to step away from her duties to address requests from the Public Ministry and the judiciary. According to Adrianzén, this situation not only affects the current president but also jeopardizes the functioning of the Executive as a whole. Article 117 of the Constitution states that a president can only be accused of treason, obstruction of elections, or for dissolving Congress unconstitutionally. However, the government claims that fiscal and judicial resolutions have been issued that, in its view, do not conform to these guidelines, which could constitute a "strictly speaking" undermining of presidential competencies. The claim therefore seeks clarification from the TC regarding the interpretation of this article and, potentially, to limit the scope of the investigations currently underway. The government’s request to the TC is not merely a formality, as the court's response could decisively influence the political stability of the country. In its submission, the Executive argues that the actions of the Public Ministry and the Judiciary are exceeding the limits established by the Constitution, which could set a dangerous precedent for future governments. In this regard, the prime minister warned that the lack of clarity about the competencies of these institutions could lead to an arbitrary use of their authority, affecting governance and the overall politics of the country. It is worth mentioning that before 2022, no sitting president had been subject to investigations by the Prosecutor's Office. However, the situation changed dramatically when, under the direction of Pablo Sánchez, a preliminary investigation was initiated against former president Pedro Castillo, setting a precedent that has been continued by his successors in the Public Ministry. This new dynamic has generated tensions between the branches of government and has led the Executive to take defensive measures such as the one recently presented. Additionally, the government points out that there has yet to be a clear ruling from the TC on the interpretation of Article 117, leaving a legal void that could be exploited. This aspect is crucial, as it allows investigations to continue that the Executive considers inappropriate and even harmful to the functioning of the government and the stability of the country. The lack of clarity in this legal framework could result in future accusations being based on interpretations that may not align with constitutional principles. The Executive's call to establish clear limits in the relationship between the branches of government is presented as a measure aimed at protecting not only President Boluarte's position but the very institutional framework of the country. In times when polarization and distrust among institutions are palpable, the government believes it is imperative to safeguard the competencies of the president, which are crucial for directing the overall policy of the country during their term. In conclusion, the filing of this jurisdictional claim by the Executive highlights the urgent need to review and clarify the interpretations of the Constitution regarding the functions of the president. The TC's decision on this matter could have significant repercussions not only for the current administration but also for the future of the democratic system in Peru. As the country navigates these tumultuous political times, the balance between the branches of government becomes more relevant than ever.