Supreme Court of Peru rejects judicial reforms and calls for democratic reflection.

In a context of increasing tension between the powers of the State, the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru has expressed its firm disagreement with several laws recently enacted by the Congress of the Republic, which are aimed at reforming the judicial system. This statement was made public through a communiqué read by Javier Huamán, the secretary of the chamber, who emphasized the lack of consensus and reflection in the legislative process. Huamán highlighted that the new regulations have been approved without proper consultation with academic and professional institutions, thereby ignoring the principle of inter-institutional collaboration that should govern in a democratic system. The criticism focuses on the perception that these reforms are not only rushed but also lack the deep consideration that the issue deserves, which could have serious repercussions on the functioning of the judicial system. One of the most concerning aspects, according to the Full Chamber, is Law 32130, which modifies the rules regarding preliminary proceedings and investigations. This law, in the judgment of the magistrates, contravenes Article 159 of the Constitution, which establishes that the Public Ministry must direct investigations into crimes from the outset. This change not only destabilizes the relationship between the Public Ministry and the National Police but could also open the door to abuses of power. The Chamber also criticized the reforms to the Criminal Procedure Code, which it argues limit the control that the judicial system has over certain procedures. This creates a situation of vulnerability where the guarantees of procedural rights may be compromised. The message is clear: any attempt to restrict judicial control and oversight is not only disturbing but could lead to a weakening of the rule of law. Furthermore, it referred to the reform of the Constitutional Procedural Code, pointing out that the proposed modifications limit the powers of control over the decisions of Parliament. This trend towards creating special procedures that alter the principles of separation and balance of powers is viewed as a direct attack on judicial independence, a fundamental pillar of any democracy. Supreme Judge César San Martín, who was present during the reading of the communiqué, emphasized that this statement is not just a criticism but a "call to attention" to the other powers of the State. In this sense, the Full Chamber seeks to alert about the risks that these reforms may pose to judicial independence, urging all involved actors to promote a legislative policy that respects democratic values. For his part, Javier Arévalo, president of the Judiciary, also spoke out vigorously about the need for reforms to the justice system to be carried out with the active participation of the Judiciary. In his statements, he stressed that structural changes cannot be made in isolation, as this could facilitate interventionism that threatens not only the independence of the judicial system but also public trust in justice. In this complex scenario, the Judiciary finds itself at a crossroads. On one hand, it has the responsibility to ensure respect for the law and justice; on the other, it must deal with a Congress that seems to act without due consideration of its implications. The tension between the two powers raises a series of questions about the future of the rule of law in the country. The situation is further aggravated by the recent announcement that the Council of Ministers will evaluate the request for the extradition of Eliane Karp to Israel, adding a new controversial component to the current political situation. The interrelation of these issues underscores the urgent need for constructive dialogue between the powers of the State, prioritizing the well-being of citizens over political interests. In summary, the statement from the Full Chamber of the Judiciary reflects a legitimate concern about the direction that legislative reforms in Peru are taking. The warnings regarding judicial independence and the need for greater consensus in lawmaking are more relevant than ever, highlighting the importance of preserving the balance of powers in a democratic system. Civil society, as well as political actors, must reflect on these issues, as the future of the judicial system and, consequently, of democracy in the country is at stake.