The plenary session of Senate approved changes to the fiscal package and returned it for second review to Deputies. This was left in the background since, during the vote in particular, the officialdom had a more than weak strategy and received two tough defeats: HE They rejected the reactivation of the Income Tax and the title of Personal Assetsand before the opinion was voted on, the ruling party announced that eliminated the option to privatize Aerolíneas Argentinas, Correo Argentino and RTA.
The way in which it was voted -the elimination- and the withdrawal of companies sparked a debate regarding the possibilities of insisting on the original text in the Chamber of Deputies. And this is something that, although it is downplayed in the meetings that the ruling party is already having with the dialogue opposition, several other legislators and Some constitutionalists question that possibility.
The constitutional lawyer Andrés Gil Domínguez published on the social network Regarding the point under discussion, the lawyer points out that it is an “omnibus law that included in a single regulatory body different matters that are not related to each other” and that this is an “exception” to the principle of regulatory specificity. That said, the specialist states that in the case of Gains the rejection by 41 negative votes to 31 positive “is a law within a law which makes the unconstitutionality of the Deputies’ intention to insist on the issue more obvious.” “There are solid arguments to affirm that the Chamber of Deputies cannot insist on the issue,” he stated.
This discussion was present in the Senate while the debate was taking place. They assure that the senator Martin Loustau alerted the president of the House of this, Victoria Villarruel, and the libertarian senators Bartolomé Abdala and Ezequiel Atauche. “Loustau told them ‘I understand that you may not like the article as written in the minority opinion but if you don’t vote for it, you would have problems in the Deputies.’ They did not pay attention and there is now the issue that is going to bring a lot of legal discussion, as Gil Domínguez explained,” explained a source consulted by Infobae.
But Domínguez was not the only one who referred to this issue. Gustavo Arballo He pointed out in a published text that art 81 allows insistence on corrections, but not on rejection: “It is incompatible with giving carte blanche to the initiating Chamber the privilege of ignoring a negative will expressly formulated by the reviewer.”
He argument that are used by the deputies who have in mind move forward with Earnings and Personal Assets is that the general approval of the project establishes that removal of chapters of these taxes It’s a correction to the original text and that is why we can insist on the reincorporation of both norms.
This position is generalized both by the deputies of La Libertad Avanza and by the negotiators of the Casa Rosada and the PRO. But, in addition, a good part of the UCR bloc, the Civic Coalition and We Make the Federal Coalition are along this line. Until now only the legislator Fernando Carbajal -from the group that responds to his colleague Facundo Manes- warned that “Deputies cannot insist on Profits, Personal Assets and the pension moratorium because they were rejected by the Senate.”
The discussion is also mixed with legislators who do not respond to their governors and who are competition among themselves in the face of the next elections. What is certain is that if the debate is not settled, the insistence on Personal Assets, Profits, pension moratorium and companies to be privatized, could end up prosecuted.
