19:56
The different presidential letters that do not belong to the ruling party agreed that President Piñera must give explanations regarding his connection with the sale of the Dominga Mining Company and the new information in the report, which would not have been included in the denial of La Moneda.
The leader in the polls for the presidential election, the candidate of Apruebo Dignidad, Gabriel Boric, said regarding what was revealed by the Pandora Papers that President Sebastián Piñera “evades taxes in tax havens, hides relevant information and also always privileges his personal interest over the common good.” And he added that “In this he is no different from the rest of his candidates Sebastián Sichel and José Antonio Kast. That is why the changes we propose are necessary in terms of public policies and also ethically.” And regarding the company in question, he pointed out that “the Dominga Mining Project is an attack on the environment and a unique ecosystem that we have in Chile that we must protect.” For his part, Marco Enríquez-Ominami, candidate for the PRO, pointed out that Piñera “enriches himself at the expense of our environment” and emphasized that “He sold his stake in Minera Dominga with the commitment that the State would not declare the project area a natural reserve.” Meanwhile, Yasna Provoste, candidate for the New Social Pact, questioned the President to explain “whether he used his position to obtain personal benefits” and pointed out that “The gravity of what was published today forces President Piñera to explain to the country whether or not he used his position for his personal business with Minera Dominga. Chile demands complete transparency.” He also indicated that “It is inconceivable that a President of the Republic would act for his own benefit by curbing environmental protection in La Higuera by ensuring a personal income. I can assure you that if we are a government, the protection of biodiversity in the area will be total.” Other authorities who have demonstrated include the parliamentarian Loreto Carvajal who pointed out that “President Piñera must give an explanation to the country. What we have known today and how the investments of the family of the President of the Republic continue to intervene in public policy decisions, especially protection, are inconceivable and incomprehensible. Today it is necessary for President Piñera to speak out because our environmental heritage, the protection of our waters, our seas, and above all the future of Chile’s generations, is priceless. It is necessary for President Piñera to pronounce himself clearly,” he said. From the DC the deputy DC, Gabriel Silber did not rule out a constitutional accusation by pointing out that “it is highly serious that President Piñera has subjected the approval of an environmental permit to an economic operation in which he participated or had a direct interest. This calls into question the independence of the authority of the President of the Republic, and consequently from the opposition we will ask for maximum transparency regarding the actions of President Piñera, his family or those who represent him regarding the Dominga project, and we will not inhibit ourselves from any control action, either from an investigative commission and even analyze the merit of a constitutional accusation. ” Meanwhile, from the Broad Front, Deputy Marcelo Díaz, of the Unir movement, also outlined the possibility of taking measures as a constitutional accusation, and indicated that “This is an extremely serious announcement, and that confirms that President Sebastián Piñera uses the institutionality of the State for his own benefit, in this case to increase his already bulky patrimony, his enormous fortune, because a little more than a month ago an extraordinary session of the environmental commission of the Coquimbo Region was convened precisely to approve this project, when there was no need, no urgency, and this confirms that it was done to directly favor the President of the Republic in personal terms. The gravity of this situation merits talking about all alternatives, including a constitutional accusation against the President.”
