RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – A controversy has been formed in Chile after a sector of the Constitutional Convention (CC) began the entry of indications for the articles that will regulate an eventual constitutional transition in case the new Magna Carta is approved. This includes an imposition of deadlines on Congress and even skipping its role in the event of blocking or delaying projects necessary for the transfer.
The indications are the result of a negotiation process of the leftist factions of the convention to regulate the constitutional transition so that the probable new Constitution does not become a dead letter. To achieve this, the body seeks to impose deadlines on Congress and new ways of working so that the Magna Carta gets underway.
Read also: Check out our coverage on Chile
Among the proposals, it is highlighted that within the year following the promulgation of the new Constitution, Congress will have the obligation to present a bill that regulates the organization of the Council of Justice, an autonomous and multinational body that will be in charge of the appointing the country’s judges and reviewing the work of the courts. In the event that two years pass and the text is not dispatched, the project presented by the president will be deemed approved.
“Within the year following the promulgation of this Constitution, the Executive Power must present a bill that regulates the organization and operation of the Council of Justice. If within the two years following the beginning of its processing, the project has not been dispatched by the Legislative Power, the project presented by the President will be considered approved,” the conventionalists proposed.
A similar formula was proposed for the regional state. The conventional ones presented the idea that the projects necessary to achieve “financial autonomy and fiscal decentralization of territorial entities” be processed within a maximum period of two years. In the event that time elapses and no results occur, “the government will proceed to make the urgency present for the processing and dispatch of the bill.”
DECREES WITH FORCE OF LAW
Along these same lines, another controversy has arisen over the idea of allowing the president to legislate through Decrees with Force of Law (DFL) to deal with housing and urban planning issues.
“Within a period of 18 months from the entry into force of this Constitution, the President of the Republic must introduce a comprehensive bill on housing and urban planning”, adding “the term expires without legislation and in accordance with the regulations contained in the Constitution, the President of the Republic will be empowered so that by means of a decree with the force of law, the approved regulations are adapted”, is what is proposed by the conventionalists.
The same is true for social security issues. Within a period of six months from the entry into force of the new Constitution, the President must process the projects to adapt the current legislation to the principles and norms established in the article on Social Security. In the event that this does not happen within two years from the presentation of the project, “the President of the Republic will issue a Decree with the Force of Law to comply with what is disposed in this provision.”
REACTIONS IN CHILE
Diverse reactions occurred in Chile after the conventionalists presented these measures. For the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Raúl Soto, “there is a greater problem with the existence of deadlines, we have much more legislative experience and we will fulfill our role efficiently.”
Another opinion was held by the director of the Center for Constitutional Justice of the Universidad del Desarrollo, Sergio Verdugo, for the portal La Tercera.com. “It is not admissible in a constitutional democracy that the Executive Branch unilaterally regulates such important aspects for the organization of the justice system,” said the academic.