Peru's Supreme Court to Review Ex-President Dina Boluarte's Vacancy Challenge
Peru's Supreme Court's Constitutional and Social Chamber will examine an appeal filed by former President Dina Boluarte concerning her removal from office. Boluarte had requested a precautionary measure to suspend the effects of a resolution by the Congress of the Republic that declared her vacancy due to permanent moral incapacity. This congressional resolution, dated October 10, 2025, was based on alleged corruption, dereliction of duty, misuse of official travel, failure to address citizen insecurity, and cosmetic procedures during her term. Boluarte argues that the congressional process violated due process and her right to defense, citing that she was notified only one hour before the debate on her vacancy. Initially, the Constitutional Chamber of Lima rejected her request for a precautionary measure, stating that it did not find sufficient evidence that Congress materially prevented her defense, especially since she did not attend the session. The chamber suggested that these procedural issues would be addressed in the main amparo lawsuit. Despite this, Boluarte persisted with her request. Consequently, on July 6, a superior chamber granted her appeal and decided to forward the precautionary measure case to the Supreme Court's Constitutional and Social Chamber for review. The main amparo process, seeking to annul the congressional decision, is currently awaiting a final ruling.
The Supreme Court's review of Dina Boluarte's vacancy challenge highlights the critical interplay between legislative and judicial powers in Peru's governance. This legal process will scrutinize the adherence to due process and defense rights within parliamentary impeachment proceedings, a mechanism susceptible to political pressures. The court's decision will not only impact Boluarte's political standing but also set precedents for future congressional oversight of executive actions, influencing the balance of power and accountability frameworks. Examining this through a decade-long lens, the case underscores the evolving challenges of democratic stability in navigating executive-legislative friction, particularly in contexts where political polarization can influence institutional decision-making.
AI-generated to prompt reflection — not editorial opinion, not advice, not a statement of fact. How this works.