Divided opinions in Congress following the approval of the report on the JNJ

Amidst intense controversy, the opinions of the congressmen are divided following the approval of the report by the Subcommission on Constitutional Accusations recommending the impeachment and disqualification for 10 years of the members of the National Council of Justice (JNJ). Congressman Guido Bellido of Peru Bicentenario defended the Parliament's authority to investigate, accuse, and disqualify members of the JNJ, although he indicated that the debate on this issue will be a subject of discussion in the plenary session. While he did not express a definitive stance, he emphasized the importance of identifying what actions constitute serious and minor offenses, underscoring that Congress is fulfilling its constitutional duty. In contrast, Edward Málaga, an independent congressman, believes that the accusation against the members of the JNJ is not timely at this moment and he will not support the measure. Málaga emphasized the need to not lose sight of the reform of the justice administration system, highlighting that there are other priorities that need to be addressed. On the other hand, Alejandro Cavero, from Avanza País, stated that if the members of the JNJ believe that due process has been violated, they should challenge it before the appropriate authorities. Cavero supported the sanction and disqualification of the members of the JNJ, arguing that they have politicized justice and applied a double standard in their decisions. In light of this situation, the debate in Congress is shaping up as a scenario of contrasting positions and diverse arguments. While some congressmen advocate for the need to sanction the members of the JNJ, others believe that there are more urgent aspects to address in the Peruvian judicial system. The discussion on this topic promises to continue in the plenary session of Congress, where the future of the members of the National Council of Justice will be determined.