The discontent of Peruvian regulators: government merger puts the country's economic and legal stability at risk

The regulatory landscape in Peru is at a crossroads following the government's proposal to merge the regulatory bodies Osiptel, Sunass, Ositran, and Osinergmin into a new multisectoral entity. This initiative has been met with strong rejection from the affected organizations themselves, who have expressed that such a merger would pose a serious risk to the legal and economic stability of the country. In a joint statement, the four regulatory bodies have voiced their concerns regarding the lack of foundations and studies supporting the government's proposal. They point out that the merger not only lacks technical support but could also have negative consequences for the Peruvian economy, especially at a time when legal and economic predictability is needed to attract investments. It is important to note that these bodies carry out highly specialized tasks in diverse economic sectors such as transportation infrastructure, sanitation services, telecommunications, energy, and mining. The proposed merger could lead to a loss of technical specialization and open the door to political influence in regulatory decisions, potentially resulting in the establishment of arbitrary fees that would harm both consumers and investors. The regulators have emphasized that their work has aimed to become world-class entities, undergoing evaluations by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and contributing to Peru's efforts to join this international organization. The OECD has recognized the importance of the technical specialization of these bodies and has not made recommendations supporting their unification. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court of Peru has acknowledged the work of the regulatory bodies in providing the necessary regulatory framework to promote new investments and ensure the well-being of users of public services. Therefore, it is questionable that the government proposes a merger that goes against the recommendations of international organizations and national jurisprudence. The regulators have recalled that in the past, proposals for unification have been put forward, which, after rigorous analysis, were deemed inadequate for the State's purposes. They insist on the importance of maintaining their autonomy and technical specialization to avoid political interference or interests that may disrupt market balance and the common good. In this regard, they call for any measure affecting the country's economic landscape to be the result of technical debate and public analysis supporting such a decision. The lack of prior consultation with the regulatory bodies, with decades of experience in their respective sectors, is concerning and raises doubts about the transparency and legitimacy of the government's proposal. In conclusion, the merger of the regulatory bodies into a multisectoral entity proposed by the Peruvian government has been unanimously rejected by Osiptel, Sunass, Ositran, and Osinergmin. These bodies believe that such a measure poses a serious risk to the legal and economic stability of the country, jeopardizing technical specialization, autonomy, and impartiality in regulatory decisions. It is essential that any changes in this area be based on solid studies and constructive dialogue with the involved parties to ensure the effectiveness and legitimacy of regulatory policies in Peru.