Last Friday, at the end of the afternoon, in an unusual event in The congress, The majority of the House of Representatives decided that it would not debate the Government’s pension reform project and that it would comply with what was approved in the Senate, giving free rein to the project proposed by the Government.
(See: Why the approval of the pension would be the ‘main social achievement’ of Colombia).
The president of the Republic, Gustavo Petro, I greet him like “the main achievement of the people“, and Parliamentarians and senior government officials posed for photos for the act achieved.
But as happened with other regulations of the current Government that did not want to listen to reasons, Analysts already warn that he will have to face constitutional control for which the standard is not prepared.
When referring to approval without debate, the representative to the House, Catherine Juvinao, accurate: “I certainly believe that it could have implications in a lawsuit before the Constitutional Court because not only are some jurists already talking about the principle of publicity being violated here, but – above all – the principle of guarantee of deliberation. May the Constitutional Court please take note. There was no guarantee of deliberation, not in any project of 15 or 20 articles, but in a structural reform of the pension system and the old age protection system.”.
(See: ABC of the changes that will come after the approval of the pension reform).
It is sad “this reform leaves the future of the new generations unfunded, that is why I voted negative for the presentation,” he said. the senator, David Luna.
The president of Amcham Colombia, María Claudia Lacouture, he claimed “It is a shame to have lost the opportunity to have a pension reform that offers the necessary alternatives for pensions for workers and a decent income for older adults. The approval process today in the Colombian House of Representatives leaves many doubts about its constitutionality”.
Approval of the pension reform Néstor Gómez / Portfolio
Former Minister of Finance Mauricio Cárdenas accurate: “1. For me, the Government acted out of desperation to show some triumph – despite the legal risk, which if it materializes will be another fact for the soft coup discourse. 2. The plenary session of the Chamber could have voted yesterday on the text tested in the 7th Commission. On Monday, reconcile texts from the House and Senate and on Tuesday and Wednesday, approve in plenary sessions. Why didn’t he do it?”.
(See: The ‘pupitrazo’ of the pensional).
Cardenas added: “Along the way he pushed for the approval of a text full of problems, in addition to formal defects… From all this I have only one conclusion left: we have a mediocre government that missed a great opportunity to improve the state of things. The reform had a high level of technical support. Not wanting to call for a national agreement, the president chose to make concessions to the races and things got out of hand. Evil”.
The general director of New Liberalism, Juan Manuel Galán he claimed: “They have just constitutionally buried the pension reform in the House of Representatives. Two reasons: not debating the text in its entirety. Not submitting sufficient illustration to the plenary for consideration. There is extensive jurisprudence on the matter. The representative to the Chamber of the Green party, Catherine Juvinao, is right”.
To its turn, Andi’s president, Bruce Mac Master, he pointed: “More than one representative of the 86 who voted today for the proposal to renounce the debate in the House knew that the reform was going to be vitiated. Why would they have done it?”.
(See: Pupitrazo? This is how the Government’s pension reform project was approved in Congress).
Congresswoman Katherine Miranda said “The pension reform is going to fall in the Constitutional Court because: 1. Can the Senate text be accepted? Of course, yes, it has been done many times, but the proposal had to be accompanied by the text approved in the Senate, therefore, there was not complete, sufficient, truthful and precise knowledge of the representatives at the time of voting. 2. There was no explanation from the government or any of the speakers of the modifications that the presentation that was filed in the Plenary of the Chamber would have with respect to the text approved in the Senate”.
The reform will now go to the Court for review.
BRIEFCASE
