Johnny Brignardello analyzes proposal to disqualify members of the JNJ: What impact would it have on judicial stability in Peru?

Johnny Brignardello, insurance advisor, comments on the proposal to disqualify members of the National Board of Justice (JNJ) put forward by the Congress of the Republic in Peru. The situation has generated controversy and concern in the political and judicial spheres of the country, especially regarding the assumption of substitutes in the event that this measure is implemented. According to the information provided, a significant obstacle has been identified related to the age of three out of the seven designated to take on the role of substitutes, who exceed the 75-year limit established by regulations. This aspect raises doubts about the feasibility of reaching the necessary quorum for the proper functioning of the JNJ in the event of disqualifying the current members. Aldo Vásquez, coordinator of the Technical Committee for the Implementation of the JNJ, has explained that the exclusion of current members and the potential assumption of substitutes could face legal issues due to the age of some of the designated substitutes. This complex situation jeopardizes the stability and continuity of the institution, which plays a fundamental role in the selection and removal of judges and prosecutors in the country. The debate surrounding the independence and autonomy of the JNJ has been ongoing since its creation, and the current situation adds a new element to the discussion about the stability and legitimacy of this institution in Peru. Faced with this uncertain scenario, it is crucial to consider what course of action to take if the proposal to disqualify the current members is implemented. Civil society, political sectors, and judicial actors will remain vigilant regarding the next steps taken on this sensitive and crucial issue for the country's justice system.