The “error” of the Constitutional Court in ruling in favor of insurer in the framework of the third withdrawal

On May 6, the Constitutional Court was informed of the request for rectification of the sentence of the State Defense Council (CDE) – by the lawyer of this body, Ruth Israel López – on behalf of the Commission for the Financial Market, in which it asks to review and correct a sentence in which, in the opinion of the lawyers of the Chilean Treasury, a factual error would have been made.
The aforementioned ruling is framed in the context of the constitutional reform that allowed last year the withdrawals of pension funds charged to annuities, which was approved by the National Congress (known as the third withdrawal of 10%).
Specifically, at the beginning of this year 2022, the TC accepted the claims for unconstitutionality presented by two insurers. It is a resource of Bice Vida and two of Penta Vida (for Illegality, and another of Protection), but three other requirements were rejected: two presented by Renta Nacional and one of 4Life Seguros de Vida.
In the case of the latter insurance company, the TC, on January 4, 2022, informed the interveners and the general public of the rejection of the request.
In this regard, it was reported verbatim: “The requirements of inapplicability for unconstitutionality in cases Roles Nos 11.350/11.560/11.633-21 INA were rejected in a vote of five votes against five. These requests were accepted by the Ministers Messrs. Aróstica Maldonado, Mrs. María Luisa Brahm Barril, Cristián Letelier Aguilar, José Ignacio Vásquez Márquez and Miguel Ángel Fernández González. For their part, the Ministers Mr. Juan José Romero Guzmán (President), Gonzalo García Pino, Nelson Pozo Silva, Mrs. María Pía Silva Gallinato and Rodrigo Pica were for the rejection.”
So far, so legal. However, in the text of the judgment released on April 28, the TC appeared accepting the appeal of the life insurer, with a changed vote, that of Minister Nelson Pozo, close to the PS, which tipped the balance in favor of the appellant company, generating the 6 x 4 that broke the balance that meant rejection, and, therefore, accepting the requirement.
All legal, but ugly.

Read the ruling in the following link.

Follow us on

Original source in Spanish

Related Posts

Add Comment