The dispute revolves around the controversial congressional decision to disqualify, on March 7, for 10 years, the members of the National Board of Justice (JNJ) Inés Tello and Aldo Vásquez from holding positions in the State.

Both were sanctioned and dismissed for interpreting the plenary session of the board that Tello could continue in office until completing the five years of his mandate, established by the constitution, despite having turned 75 years old, an age limit also provided for in the Magna Carta.

The ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima freezes the Parliament’s decision and provides that Tello and Vásquez resume their positions in the JNE, at least until the merits of their claim are resolved.

Faced with the surprising decision, the Congress of the Republic rejected the provisional suspension of the disqualification that it considers fully legal.

The statement invokes the ruling of the Constitutional Court (TC) that, months ago, in the face of a similar dispute, ruled that the Judiciary cannot interfere in the exclusive and exclusive decisions of Parliament.

However, that TC resolution also says that if these decisions affect fundamental rights, they can be controlled by judges.

The ruling of the Supreme Court indicates that, since the judges were disqualified for interpreting the application of the age limit rule and not for reasons that must be explicit, the decision of Congress affects the principle of legality. It thus partially coincides with the defense argument of the Tello and Vásquez and also with their argument that the sanction lacks a criterion of proportionality.

Jurist Beatriz Ramírez said that this is confirmed by the fact that Congress does not disqualify several of its members sanctioned for forcing officials in their offices to give them part of their salary, but it does disqualify the judges of the JNJ.

Ramírez added that the case has a motivation outside of legal and legal matters and is the interest of political groups that have an interest in controlling the board that elects and dismisses judges and prosecutors, which is important for legislators and politicians who have investigations or trials. for corruption and other crimes.

Everything indicates that the judges will return to their seats, since an amparo action can only be reversed through an appeal and can be appealed even in the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.

Legal experts consulted estimate that the litigation could last for a year or more, a time that is above the eight months remaining in the mandate of the members of the JNJ.

ef/lam/mrs