Within an hour, the Parliamentary Ethics Commission He shielded the leader of yesterday Congress, Alejandro Soto (Alianza para el Progreso), and sent to file two complaints against him for hiring his son’s aunt and using his staff to improve his image on social networks and attack enemies. Only one file continued – it will now go to the hearing stage – but it had to be resolved with a tight vote.
The first case spoken against yesterday Soto This is related to the hiring of Yeshira Peralta Salas as the coordinator of his congressional office, the sister of Lizeth Peralta, with whom the parliamentarian has a one-year-old son.
Although he worked in his office between July 27, 2021 and July 31, 2023, Alejandro Soto Reyes She tried to downplay this fact by confirming that she was the mother of his son “She is neither my partner nor my wife”; And the relationship he started with her “quick” It started after he hired his sister in his office.
The Technical Secretariat of the Commission requested in its analysis two congressional reports (from the Office of Law and the Constitution and the Department of Human Resources) from the Member of Parliament Roberto Sánchez (Democratic Transition-Together for Peru), and a report from the Comptroller’s Office. , indicating that Yeshira Peralta Salas had no reasons for relationship or other impediments at the time of her hiring, July 2021.
Declaring the complaint inadmissible and recommending its transfer to the archive, this merits report was approved with eight votes in favor of Fuerza Popular, APP, Block Magisterial, Perú Bicentenario and Avanza País. The commission then sent the case to archive.
However, the report does a criminal and legal analysis, but not for ethical behavior, warned Congresswoman Ruth Luke (Cambio Democrático-JP) during the session, who did not vote.
“(The report focuses) on whether or not there is a figure of kinship, not the role of an ethics commission.”, He noted. “The analysis should have focused on whether or not the alleged conduct violated ethics”he added.
“Ethics Commission not approved. (…) The report from the Comptroller’s Office is binding and from the executive branch of Congress. “We can’t determine that there was an ethical responsibility because the dates don’t really match up.”Diego Bazan, president of the commission, said at the end of the session.
Statute of Limitations
The second case mentioned is to state the statute of limitations. Act no. The parliamentarian would have benefited at the judicial level from 31751, which shortens the statute of limitations, and he voted as a spokesperson to add it to the agenda, as well as voting in favor in the plenary session. Congress.
In this file, the merits report recommended that the complaint be declared admissible and investigated. “The circumstances, time, and opportunity in which the accused Congressman might have benefited from the statute are relevant facts to be known by the Commission.”indicated.
Congressman SotoToday the President of the Congress assured that he does not benefit from this law, because his process has already been dismissed and in November 2019 the Court of the Fourth Preparatory Trial of Cuzco declared the law a ban.
“The published decision was appealed by the affected parties, and then, the decision was declared null and void, ordering the initiation of a new control of the charge, which is why, the technical defense of the accused Congress was presented. On July 14, 2023, when Act No. 31751 was in full force, the request for an exception to the prescriptionThe report reads.
But not only that. Also specified: “Another relevant fact is that if the impeached Congressman had initially (…) said that his case would have already been dismissed, So, why did he go as a defendant on July 21, 2023 with a lawyer? On that date he requested the counsel for the prosecutor to pre-declare the criminal destruction by prescription? In favor of the condemned Congressman”
However, this did not interest the parliamentarians present in the session. At the time of the vote, seven voted against the report, again from Furza Popular, Alianza Para el Progreso, Magisterial Bloc and Somos Perú. Seven others leaned in favor.
At the end of the vote, faced with a tie, the chairman of the Ethics Commission had to decide in favor of the prosecution.
Finally, another merit statement was mentioned in the case of workers working in his office, who were required to pay a monthly amount. “Volunteers” To enter into an advertising contract in favor of Alejandro Soto Protecting it in social networks, as well as at work and attacking enemies in cyberspace, through fake accounts.
The merits report declared the complaint admissible and recommended initiation of investigation.
“It is important to decide whether the Congressman Soto Reyes “Whether he is aware of the actions of his technical office team to lighten his political image in the face of public opinion, he also attacks other congressmen representing the Cuzco region, especially since they are trusted workers.”as indicated in the document.
The issue was sent to the archives, with only eight votes against and six in favor of the report, with votes from Congress members Fuerza Popular, Alianza para el Progreso, Bloc Magisterial, Perú Libre and Somos Peru. They don’t even want to investigate.
Congresswoman Ruth Luke revisited the issue. But, that too did not reach the required votes.
Thus, three cases against Soto What was on the agenda; It is authorized only to inquire into those specified in the statute of limitations. However, the tight vote sheds light on the future of this – unique – trial.