Following yesterday’s controversy in the Chamber of Deputies with the submission of a motion of censure to the Bureau of the Corporation, the Radical Party (PR) bench finally decided to withdraw the action.
The PR’s determination follows a meeting held by opposition benchers to assess the course of the action. In this regard, the parliamentarians suggested that the Radical Party withdraw censorship, because it was most likely rejected on Wednesday in the vote, Cooperative said.
The PR’s argument for presenting this motion of censure was for not allowing the telematic vote of MPs Camila Vallejo (PC) and Cristóbal Urruticoechea (RN), who were not allowed to vote on 15 October in the discussion of the Integral Child Sex Education project, as they initiated the discussion in person, but ended it telematically.
The presentation of this motion surprised the opposition, considering that some representatives of the benches ensured that it was not something discussed or coordinated. In addition, it drew attention to the moment it was filed: just after the constitutional charge was passed against the Minister of the Interior, Victor Pérez, who subsequently submitted his resignation.
In this regard, radical DEPUTY Marcela Hernando argued that «no bench chief can say that she had no idea that censorship would be done at the table; had been talking for quite some time, and I say so on behalf of my bank manager.»
Since Christian Democracy (DC), chief banker Daniel Verdessi said that «we have had no pre-constitutional indictment conversation regarding censorship. Many asked me if we had had any agreements, and categorically I say no reference to the issue of censorship. We were surprised.»
Meanwhile, the DC Ivan Flores noted that «it was absolutely untimely, that he did not talk to anyone. I must say it clearly.»
For her part, the deputy of the Humanist Party (PH), Pamela Jiles expressed her annoyance at the move of the Radical Party. «I have no reason to censor to the table run by Mr. Paulsen. You know perfectly well that I’m in the antipodes of that table, but I find it tremendously irresponsible what just happened in the Hall. It is also to put all of us who have worked unitarily on this accusation in an embarrassing and unacceptable situation.»