Peru's Constitutional Court has ruled to suspend all investigations by the Public Ministry against President Dina Boluarte until the end of her term on July 28, 2026. This decision stems from a jurisdictional lawsuit filed by the executive branch, arguing that ongoing investigations, including cases like "Rolex," "Safe," and "Social Protests," exceeded the powers of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

The ruling allows the Public Ministry to conduct limited preliminary investigations into matters not covered by Article 117 of the Constitution, which outlines the offenses for which a president can be held accountable during their term (such as treason, obstructing elections, or dissolving Congress). However, any other measures, including searches or seizures of residences, are prohibited until the presidential term concludes.

The decision stipulates that investigative actions already taken will not be annulled but will be suspended and can be used as evidence when cases are reactivated after Boluarte's term ends. This ruling has sparked debate, with some viewing it as a protection of the presidency and others as an attempt to evade legal accountability.

Key Indicators

Strong Signal: This ruling marks a significant development in how the judicial system handles cases involving the sitting president, potentially impacting political and legal accountability in Peru.
Exclusive: This information is not widely available internationally, offering a unique perspective on the legal and political challenges facing the Peruvian presidency.

Regional Perspective

Peru's Constitutional Court emphasizes the principle of separation of powers and the protection of presidential term stability. This decision reflects a legal culture that seeks a delicate balance between ensuring accountability and preventing the disruption of government functions.

Immediate Implications

What Happens Next: Ongoing investigations against President Boluarte will be suspended and may be resumed after her term ends in July 2026.
Opportunities or Risks: The government may face additional political pressure if the opposition interprets this ruling as absolute immunity, potentially leading to further instability.

Analysis

This move by Peru's Constitutional Court sets a significant legal precedent, affecting not only the current president but also establishing a framework for future presidents. The ruling raises questions about the effectiveness of accountability mechanisms in presidential systems, especially when they conflict with the principle of presidential immunity. While the defense argues the ruling protects the "dignity of the presidential office," critics see it as an attempt to delay accountability. The extent of this ruling's impact will depend on its future interpretation and application, as well as the capacity of civil society and other institutions to ensure transparency and accountability.