“Congress can partially or completely change the Constitution without the need for a parallel body,” says the constitutionalist.

He Congress of the Republic scheduled today, Thursday, for the second consecutive day of debate on the progress of this year’s general elections.

At this afternoon’s meeting, two minority projects from Constitutional Commission: promoted by Congressman Jaime Quito and parliamentarian Alejandro Cavero; in addition to the draft executive in this regard.

However, the constitutional lawyer Alexander Rospigliosi, in dialogue with RPP News, pointed out that Constitution it can be changed “in whole or in part” by the next parliament without the need for a “parallel body” such as a constituent assembly.

“The Constitution, like all human and political writings, is a work in progress and can be improved. I believe that the next Congress to be elected, which has the powers of established and constituent power, can discuss and amend the Constitution in part or in whole, as future congressmen consider it good,” he explained.

“There is no need to create a parallel body with remuneration and expenses, which discusses from a clean slate the structure of the state, which is a new Constitution”, he added.

The process of “consensus” for a way out of the crisis

Regarding the current situation with the promotion of parliamentary elections for 2023, rospigliosi believed that the “output” might be to break the congressman’s minority project into paragraphs Jaime Quitoso early elections for 2023 and consultations on Constituent Assembly.

“Firstly, in order to discuss the issue of postponing the elections to October 2023, this could be a consensus text. Once this item is voted on and it gets 66 votes, ask for a referendum. I’m sure he won’t be successful, no. have the right to vote. But if the text is broken into parts, it will be a way to unlock this problem that we have dragged ourselves into, ”he explained.

In this sense, he reiterated that the “original version” of the minority draft could be “modified” to reach an agreed text.

“The original version of the minority debate is subject to change. I don’t like this initial version because it talks about holding a referendum regardless of whether the citizens want to convene a constituent assembly or not,” he said.

At the same time, he believed that in itself posing a question to the public regarding constituent Assembly it is “dangerous” because it can be used as a reason to “go in that direction”.

“But this issue is very dangerous, because a referendum is not a public opinion poll. If the answer is yes, it will put pressure on us to go down this path (…) The people are sovereign, but the sovereign must be educated. You cannot happily throw questions everywhere,” he said.