Why is it correct to say that Pedro Castillo committed a coup?

of the former minister Gustavo Bobbio (Defence), or the former Prime Minister and jurist Hannibal Torres, Various political figures still ignore or deny a coup by the former president Pedro Castillo.

Inside of CongressMoreover, this confusion persists. In Switzerland, during a citizen participation forum held a few days ago, the parliamentarian Margot Palacios (Libre Pérou) ignored what happened in December 2022 and denounced a “military dictatorship” in the country.

In response to the uncertainty of those cited, constitutional scholars carlos hakansson there Heber Joel Campos underline GlobeLiveMedia that the action of Castle -during his presidential speech in an open signal- was unconstitutional because he tried to close the Parliament and “reorganize” the main institutions of Peru: Public Prosecutor’s Office, Judiciary, Constitutional Court (CC) and National Electoral Jury (NEJ).

“What happened on December 7 was a Rebellion. Whether it’s a failure is another matter to discuss, but the blow was. What happens is that he was not seconded by the Armed forces (FF.AA.) and the National Police,” Hakansson said.

Last week, however, Torres Vásquez insisted on denying the aforementioned dictatorial figure, before the Constitutional Charges Subcommittee, because “the forces of order did not rise”. Bobbio also participated in said session, which previously maintained that only a presidential proclamation or speech was delivered.

“It is nonetheless a coup d’etat which was not consummated by the force of the police and the armed forces. (…) Although the Constitution does not speak of this figure, it speaks – more than once – of a constitutional order. This is precisely what Castillo violated, he was democratically elected, ”explained the aforementioned lawyer.

In this context, the constitutionalist Joel Champs also explained to GlobeLiveMedia What “it would be absurd to claim a positive result (after Castillo’s speech) sanction this type of act”.

“A coup involves the overthrow of the rule of law, when this happens there are no prosecutors to accuse or judges to prosecute. (…) Dictatorships do not submit to justice, on the contrary. What dictatorships do is submit their arbitrary decisions to justice,” he explained.

Subsequently, he maintained that “beyond what certain lawyers or politicians indicate (…) this question has already been clarified by the judiciary”.

“When he judge Cesar San Martin resolved the period of remand (against Pedro Castillo) makes this clarification. He said what happened on December 7 qualified as an act of sedition,” he said.

He also recalled that the magistrate cited the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court “where it was specified that the crime of rebellion, to be configured, did not require an effective result”.

“The discussion in legal terms ends there (…), for any practical effect, what corresponds is to take this parameter to evaluate the conduct of Castillo”, he added.

Left benches – and other political formations – denounced that the dismissal of the former head of state in Congress had not followed the usual path.

the lawyer for Castillo Terrones, Eduardo Pashasstated that none of the provisions issued by the legislature followed the process of political impeachment provided for in Articles 99 and 100 of the Constitution.

Hakansson, however, ruled out such a situation. In dialogue with this media, he explained that dignitaries lose “their just title of command” -constitutionally granted by democracy- when they decide to violate the constitutional order.

“A president of the republic loses his legitimacy immediately kicking the board. The subsequent vacancy of Parliament was a formality. Pedro Castillo has lost his legitimacy by taking a measure that was not prescribed by Magna Carta, which exceeds his powers and reveals a manifest arbitrariness against the institutions,” he said.