Approval of law in Peru generates controversy over the autonomy of the Public Ministry.

The recent approval by the Plenary of the Congress of Peru, which allows the National Police of Peru (PNP) to conduct preliminary investigations into certain crimes without the presence of a prosecutor, has sparked a broad debate in the legal and political sphere of the country. This measure, celebrated by former Interior ministers and high-ranking police officials, occurs within a context where the PNP seeks to regain powers that have traditionally been held by the Public Ministry. However, the resistance from the Board of Supreme Prosecutors raises serious questions regarding the constitutionality and effectiveness of this initiative. The Board of Supreme Prosecutors has expressed its strong rejection of the regulation, arguing that it openly contradicts Article 159 of the Constitution, which establishes that the conduct of criminal investigations corresponds exclusively to the Public Ministry. In their statement, the supreme prosecutors urged legislators to reflect on the implications of this decision, warning that it could lead to institutional weakening that favors impunity rather than strengthening the fight against crime. Throughout their analysis, the Board highlighted that the regulation not only strips the Public Ministry of its investigative power but also would force prosecutors to work through the PNP to carry out preliminary investigations. This, according to the prosecutors, would jeopardize the autonomy of the Public Ministry and the separation of powers, which are fundamental pillars of the rule of law. The prosecutors also pointed out that the technical and operational capacity of the PNP to conduct criminal investigations is questionable. According to a report on police attention and service quality, a high percentage of the country’s criminal investigation departments urgently need improvements in infrastructure and logistical resources, raising doubts about the effectiveness of the PNP in this new role. In a broader context, the Board recalled that the Executive had already attempted to implement similar measures through Legislative Decrees last December, which were subject to a lawsuit for unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court, which has yet to issue a definitive ruling. This history of reform attempts and resistance from the Public Ministry reflects a conflict of competencies in which citizens' rights could be compromised. Furthermore, the prosecutors questioned how investigations against high-ranking state officials would be conducted under this new legal framework. The ambiguity of the regulation regarding the investigation of presidents, ministers, and congress members raises further concerns about the direction and effectiveness of investigative work in cases of corruption and abuse of power. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the international community is closely monitoring the development of this legislation. The indecorous interaction between the Executive and the Legislative in matters of criminal justice could affect Peru's image abroad, putting international cooperation in security and justice at risk. For her part, President Dina Boluarte has called on the Public Ministry and the Judiciary not to release criminals, which resonates as a cry for greater citizen security. However, this demand should not come at the expense of institutional autonomy and respect for constitutional competencies, which are the foundation of the democratic system. The discussion surrounding the presentation of this regulation and its consequences underscores the urgent need to establish a constructive dialogue among state institutions. The fight against corruption and crime should not be a pretext for undermining the independence of the justice system, but rather an opportunity to strengthen it and ensure that all citizens receive fair and equitable treatment. The upcoming vote in Congress will be crucial in defining the direction of justice in Peru. Citizens must remain attentive and vigilant, demanding that legislative decisions align with the principles of democracy and respect for human rights, ensuring that every step toward security does not involve a step back in justice.