The Constitutional Court is considering removing tolls from Rutas de Lima through a writ of habeas corpus, sparking a high-impact legal and political debate. The decision could set a crucial precedent in concession disputes.

The Constitutional Court is currently in the process of deciding on the possibility of removing tolls from Rutas de Lima through a writ of habeas corpus. This situation has sparked intense debate in the legal and political spheres, as it could set a significant precedent in how disputes over concession contracts are resolved in the country. The habeas corpus petition was filed by lawyer Ramón Pairazaman León, who argued that the toll at Puente Piedra violates the right to freedom of transit. The Metropolitan Municipality of Lima supported this stance, garnering significant support for the request to remove the toll. However, legal experts like Renzo Carrasco have pointed out that habeas corpus is not the appropriate mechanism to resolve contractual disputes like this. They warn that allowing tolls to be removed through this recourse could open the door to future challenges to other concessions in the country, jeopardizing legal security and investment stability. On the other hand, Roger Zavaleta has emphasized that the way to resolve contractual disputes like this is through arbitration, as stipulated in the Rutas de Lima concession contract. He argues that declaring a contract as corrupt or harmful to the public must follow the procedures established in the agreements signed. The debate has intensified with the involvement of political figures such as Mayor López Aliaga, who has denounced possible acts of corruption in the awarding of the Rutas de Lima contract. However, the legality and validity of this contract are still under analysis by the relevant authorities. Amidst these discussions, the public is awaiting a decision from the Constitutional Court, which will have repercussions not only in the specific case of Rutas de Lima tolls, but also in the future of concessions and contracts throughout the country. Legal security and respect for the rule of law are at stake, and the outcome of this case will set an important precedent for the resolution of similar conflicts in the future.