Pension Authority: a mockery of the law

Pension Authority: a mockery of the law
Pension Authority: a mockery of the law

Last week I showed how the Pensions and Insurance Authority (APS) not only fails to comply with its mandate to defend the rights of the insured, but also violates them. It also does not adhere to legal regulations, repeatedly violating them and committing acts classified in the penal code (https://www.lostiempos.com/actualidad/opinion/20240609/columna/farsa-autoridad-pensiones). I close the topic by exposing the attitude of this institution before the law.

In the case described, the APS repeatedly refused to correct its error in determining the date, corresponding to a medical opinion, which warrants granting me the benefits provided by law, an eventuality for which we all pay an insurance premium along with our contributions to the Pension Fund Administrators (AFP), today replaced by the Gestora. And instead, to top it off, they illegally modified the qualification of the medical opinion several times.

In light of this, on December 27, 2023, the Plurinational Constitutional Resolution 294/2023 sanctioned by the Second Constitutional Chamber of the Departmental Court of Justice of La Paz confirmed that the APS violated my rights and current regulations. Among the considerations it mentions: “there is evidence of an infringement of the right to due process”, “omission inconsistency”, “additive inconsistency”, “the right to the stability of administrative acts has been infringed”, “injuring and affecting the rights of the administered”.

Therefore, the Constitutional Resolution annuls the opinions and dates issued by the APS and orders it to: i) issue a resolution that provides a justified response to my request to correct the error in the date, ii) in this response apply the principle per person established in the international convention on human rights, that is, applying the rule most favorable to my right, iii) refrain from modifying and ruling on the health rating and iv) give him a period of five days to comply with the sentence. Good news! After more than 7 years since the beginning of this Kafkaesque story, it seems that justice can finally work, I said to myself.

Naive me: the APS was laughing its head off at the ruling and scrupulously failed to comply with each of the four points ordered: it issued a resolution on February 20, 2024 (eight weeks later, almost the same as the five days ordered, right?), in which it approves a new and expressly prohibited opinion (the fifth!) of health qualification. It does not modify the erroneous date and it does not tell the truth to justify it (mentioning that there is no health certificate that in the previous paragraph it admits to having reviewed). To top it off, it does not even mention (it does not know/does not respond) the principle per person.

What can I say! The APS not only again enthusiastically incorporates each and every one of the faults for which the Court annulled its previous resolutions, but adds more, such as the obvious falsehood mentioned and the gross failure to comply with the deadline established in the constitutional ruling. When the Court then ordered the APS to report on compliance with the order, it responds with a cantinflesque wording of no less than eight pages (in which, of course, the principle per person It is neither mentioned nor appears (does that even exist?), repeatedly stating that it has “strictly” (sic) complied with all its instructions. What is more, it challenges the Court: “APS does not admit the disaggregation of the opinion” (sic). It thus adds a new illegality, by failing to comply with what was expressly ordered by the court.

In this realm of illegality, where public officials receive salaries with public resources to dedicate themselves to violating the rights of citizens and disregarding legal regulations, the fact of not complying with a Constitutional Resolution must seem the most normal thing to them. Do the high authorities of the State think the same? Do they laugh at the “mischief” of the public servants appointed by them? Do they congratulate them for their ingenuity? I don’t know, but when I went to a department of the Ministry of Justice, I was informed that this State portfolio can only be part of proceedings against citizens and not against authorities and public institutions that mock the Constitution and the Law.

 
For Latest Updates Follow us on Google News
 

-

PREV “Our enemy is yours”
NEXT Lamine is priceless | Brand