The President of Peru accused in the Rolex case: How far will Congress go?

The legal situation of the president of Peru, Dina Boluarte, has taken a significant turn as she has been accused in the context of the Rolex case, where she is being charged with the alleged commission of the crime of improper passive bribery. This accusation, filed by the interim Attorney General, Juan Carlos Villena, has sparked a profound debate on how far Congress can go in this process and the legal implications it carries. According to the complaint filed by the Public Ministry, Boluarte allegedly received as a donation from the regional governor of Ayacucho, Wilfredo Oscorima, three high-value Rolex watches, gold jewelry with diamonds, and other gifts, presumably with the purpose of influencing decisions related to her position as president of the Republic. Furthermore, she is being questioned for issuing Supreme Decrees and laws favorable to the Ayacucho Regional Government. The value of the gifts received by Boluarte amounts to significant figures, drawing attention to the potential influence they may have had on her leadership as head of state. The accusation is based on an extensive document compiling 33 pieces of evidence against the president, indicating that she may have engaged in criminal acts during her official duties. Amidst this scenario, the question arises about the limits of Congress to carry out an accusatory process against Boluarte, considering the constitutional protections that shield a sitting president. Article 117 of the Constitution establishes the grounds on which a president can be accused, limiting these possibilities to cases of treason, hindering elections, or the operation of key institutions. Constitutional experts have indicated that Congress may not be able to initiate an accusatory process against Boluarte based on the grounds presented in the complaint, posing a complex legal scenario. Despite this, the constitutional complaint filed by Villena has initiated a process that will need to be carefully analyzed by the relevant authorities. The president of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Accusations has announced that the complaint will be evaluated within their working group, marking the beginning of a process that could lead to pivotal decisions in the political and legal realms. On the other hand, there is the possibility of a congressman submitting a motion of vacancy against Boluarte as a way out of this situation. Regarding the investigation against Wilfredo Oscorima, also implicated in the case, it has been stated that it will continue in a different Prosecutor's Office, as he does not have the constitutional protections of a sitting president. The complexity of this case and the legal implications it carries have sparked intense debate in the public sphere regarding transparency and accountability in the exercise of power. The filing of the constitutional complaint has stirred surprise and controversy, with divided opinions on the strength of the accusations and the relevance of initiating an accusatory process at this time. While some experts believe that the Public Ministry has acted prematurely, others support the decision arguing that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the accusation. In conclusion, the Rolex case and Dina Boluarte's involvement test the judicial and political system of Peru, raising questions about the autonomy of institutions, transparency in the exercise of power, and the responsibility of public officials. The development of this process will be crucial in defining the course of justice and governance in the country, marking a milestone in recent Peruvian history.