Gutierrez Tise does not agree with the decision of the joint venture and denies coercion of judges by the verdict of the TS.

Magistrate of the Constitutional Court, Gustavo Gutierrez Tiseexpressed its opposition this Thursday to a statement released the day before by the plenary chamber of the Supreme Court, in which a majority of chief justices questioned the verdict handed down by the highest interpreter of the Constitution in favor of Congress.

talking to Things as they are RPP Noticias, Gutiérrez Tise indicated that in the TC they “democratically” disagree with what was expressed by the higher magistrates Power of attorney; however, he pointed out that, under the current constitutional model, judges must abide by what the TC issues.

Regarding the decision of the TS.

As for the verdict, the magistrate indicated that the position of the TC is that there was a slowdown in political power Congress on the appeals filed against him, which were accepted. In his opinion, this can lead to the election of the President Power of attorney and head of the government ministry.

“We believe that in this case what has happened is a systematic inhibition of the political powers of the parliament, not subject to prosecution, and this attracts our attention and worries us, tomorrow later an amparo can be initiated against the election of the President of the Judiciary or against the election of the Attorney of the Nation and would also draw attention to how a judge can interfere in actions that are purely political,” he said.

Moreover, he rejected the fact that by his sentence constitutional Court coerces judges of the judiciary because said decision informs the National Council of Justice of alleged misconduct on the part of judges when considering appeals against Parliament.

“We are also considering within the scope of our functions, because there is not a single country that does not have political spheres that would not interfere, because they themselves are political actions, and this is a lie of the size of the Civic Center to say that it forces judges, because the judges and the verdict are clear about this, they can intervene when fundamental rights are affected,” he said.

Statement of the judiciary

Full chamber of the Supreme Court expressed his disagreement and concern about the verdict handed down by the court. constitutional Court (TC) in favor of Congress regarding the requirement of conflict of jurisdiction in respect of judgments.

By a decision approved by the majority, the Plenary Chamber referred to the judgment of 23 February 2023, which was published in the Official Gazette. Peruvian man last March 9th.

“The judiciary cannot agree with the reasons given for the aforementioned court decision. constitutional Court. Rather, it expresses concern about the legal concept it adopts and highlights the serious implications it can have for the protection of fundamental rights of citizens and the independence of the judiciary,” they said.