2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis

2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis
Part of the 2017–present Peruvian political crisis
Top to bottom: Government Palace, seat of Peru's presidency. Legislative Palace, meeting place of the Congress of Peru
Date	30 September 2019 (2019-09-30) – 14 January 2020 (2020-01-14) (3 months and 15 days)
Location	Peru
Goals	Anti-corruption reforms
Methods	Dissolution of Congress Congressional snap elections to be held in January 2020
Resulted in	Constitutional Court rules that dissolution was legal and constitutional.
Parties
President of Peru Council of Ministers Armed Forces of Peru Congress of Peru Popular Force (majority)
Lead figures
Martín Vizcarra Mercedes Aráoz Salvador del Solar Pedro Olaechea Keiko Fujimori

Peruvian political crisis
Causes
Fujimorism Corruption Odebrecht scandal
Events
Institutional acts Censure of Zavala cabinet 2019 constitutional crisis Impeachments Kuczynski's 1st Kuczynski's 2nd Vizcarra's 1st Vizcarra 2nd Castillo's 1st Castillo's 2nd Castillo's 3rd Scandals Cuellos Blancos Pardon of Alberto Fujimori Mamanivideos scandal COVID-19 pandemic Vacunagate 2021 electoral crisis 2022 self-coup attempt
Elections
2016 general election 2018 referendum 2020 parliamentary election 2021 general election 2026 general election
Protests
2017 teachers' strike 2018 agrarian strike Protests against Manuel Merino 2020–2021 agrarian strike 2021–2022 mining protests Protests against Pedro Castillo Protests against Dina Boluarte Apurímac protests
Armed violence
Deaths of Brian Pintado and Inti Sotelo Ayacucho massacre Juliaca massacre
Peru portal
v t e

The 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis began on 30 September 2019, when President Martín Vizcarra dissolved the Congress of Peru, citing a de facto denial of a confidence vote.^[1] This marked the first use of the 1993 Constitution’s provision allowing the president to dissolve Congress. The decision, however, was promptly contested by opposition lawmakers,^[2][3][4][5] who argued that Vizcarra’s actions constituted a “coup” or “self-coup,”^[6] with some comparing it to the 1992 self-coup led by then-President Alberto Fujimori.^[7][8] In January 2020, the Constitutional Court upheld Vizcarra’s decision as lawful.

In response to the dissolution, Congress declared Vizcarra’s presidency suspended and appointed Vice President Mercedes Aráoz as interim president.^[1][9] That evening, however, Peru’s Armed Forces publicly expressed support for Vizcarra by releasing a photograph taken with him in the Government Palace. Public reaction was generally favorable, as the move resonated with widespread dissatisfaction toward a Congress viewed as obstructive and corrupt.

The following day, on 1 October 2019, Aráoz resigned from her interim post, and Vizcarra issued a decree for early legislative elections, which were scheduled for 26 January 2020.^[9]

Since 2016, relations between the Peruvian presidency and Congress have been marked by significant conflict. This tension surfaced early in the tenure of President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, who faced opposition from Congress, culminating on September 14, 2017, when Congress overwhelmingly passed a motion of no confidence against Prime Minister Fernando Zavala. This led to a complete cabinet reshuffle and the appointment of a new prime minister.^[10][11]

In March 2018, Kuczynski resigned amid the “Kenjivideos” scandal, which revealed alleged attempts to buy votes from legislators to avoid impeachment. Following his resignation, First Vice President Martín Vizcarra assumed the presidency.^[12] Committed to anti-corruption measures,^[1] Vizcarra prioritized constitutional reforms aimed at increasing government transparency and reducing corruption. These reforms included prohibiting private funding for political campaigns, banning the re-election of legislators, and introducing a second legislative chamber.^[13] Transparency International endorsed Vizcarra’s proposals, stating that they presented a unique opportunity for genuine reform.^[14]

However, Vizcarra’s initiatives faced resistance from the Popular Force party, led by Keiko Fujimori. Fujimori herself was arrested in October 2018 on charges of money laundering and corruption in connection with the Odebrecht scandal, a high-profile case involving bribery across Latin America.^[15][16] The Popular Force party, which held a majority in Congress, opposed Vizcarra’s reforms and introduced a bill to modify his proposed referendum.^[17][16] In December 2018, the referendum proceeded, with the Peruvian public largely supporting Vizcarra's original proposals over those modified by Congress.^[18]

The Peruvian Constitution grants the executive branch the authority to dissolve Congress following a second vote of no-confidence.^[11][1] The first vote of no-confidence took place on September 14, 2017.^[10] Subsequently, on September 27, 2019, President Martín Vizcarra called for a matter of confidence, citing significant risks to Peruvian democracy due to Congress's actions.^[11]

Vizcarra’s call for confidence was rooted in disputes over reforms to the Constitutional Court’s organic law. Vizcarra and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights criticized Congress for blocking proposals to hold general elections while swiftly approving nominees to the Constitutional Court of Peru without conducting background checks.^[11] On that same day, Vizcarra referenced an interview published in the weekly Hildebrandt en sus trece, in which journalist César Hildebrandt spoke with Constitutional Court magistrate Marianella Ledesma Narváez. Ledesma revealed that a colleague had suggested she could retain her position on the Court if she voted in favor of releasing Keiko Fujimori, a prominent political figure facing corruption charges. The Court was then considering a habeas corpus petition filed by Fujimori’s sister, Sachi Fujimori, to secure her release.^[19][11]

On September 27, 2019, following Congress’s rejection of a proposal to advance general elections, the Vizcarra administration announced a motion of confidence related to the process for selecting Constitutional Court magistrates.^[20] President Martín Vizcarra stated that Prime Minister Salvador del Solar would formally present the motion of confidence, requesting that Congress approve amendments to the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court to reform magistrate selection procedures.^[21]

The matter of confidence called on Congress to halt the current selection process, approve the proposed procedural changes, and apply them to the ongoing selection of magistrates. On September 27, the Prime Minister’s Office (PCM) officially notified Congress of Del Solar’s intention to present the matter for legislative consideration.^[20]

In an interview on September 29, Vizcarra asserted that if Congress denied the confidence motion, he would exercise his constitutional authority to dissolve Congress and call for new elections.^[21] On September 30, Prime Minister Del Solar and his cabinet convened at the Government Palace before proceeding to Congress to present the confidence matter and the proposed legal reforms.^[21] Upon arrival, Del Solar requested to deliver the bill immediately but was informed he would need to wait until 9:00 a.m. PET, the official opening time for document submissions. The matter of confidence was officially registered at 9:09 a.m., marked as bill number 4847/2019-PE, and forwarded to the Committee of Constitution and Regulations.^[21]

Meanwhile, the Board of Spokespersons—a body comprising congressional leaders tasked with prioritizing plenary discussions—convened to set the day’s agenda.^[21] At approximately 10:25 a.m., the board resolved to hold a vote on the Constitutional Court magistrates that morning, reserving the afternoon for Del Solar’s presentation.^[21] This schedule allowed Congress to proceed with the magistrate elections before addressing the matter of confidence, with Popular Force, APRA, Contigo, Acción Republicana, Cambio 21, and Alliance for Progress supporting this sequence.^[21]

On September 30, 2019, a plenary session of the Peruvian Congress commenced at 10:25 a.m. with 102 of the 130 members present, exceeding the quorum requirement of 62.^[22] According to official records, the session opened amid noticeable commotion as the Congress president initiated the scheduled election of new Constitutional Court magistrates.^[22] Tensions arose when some lawmakers objected to proceeding with the election before addressing the matter of confidence that Prime Minister Salvador del Solar was set to present that afternoon.^[22]

By 10:40 a.m., members from the New Peru and Broad Front parties submitted a motion of censure against the Board of Directors, alleging misuse of authority by prioritizing the magistrate election over the confidence issue.^[22] Meanwhile, Del Solar, waiting in Congress since 8:00 a.m. with his cabinet, attempted to enter the chamber to present the confidence motion.^[22] However, he encountered resistance at the chamber doors from the majority party members, who had locked the entrance. Congresswoman Marisa Glave Huilca of New Peru protested the restricted access, noting that members had to knock on the doors to exit. Minister Gloria Montenegro also criticized the decision to seal the doors, claiming she had to assert her congresswoman status to gain entry.^[22]

Around 10:50 a.m., with Speaker Pedro Olaechea briefly absent from the session floor, acting Speaker César Vásquez authorized the doors to be reopened. Vásquez announced at 10:52 a.m. that Del Solar and his ministers had entered without official authorization, leading to a suspension of the session.^[22] Following a brief standoff between majority and minority congressmen around the ministerial cabinet, Del Solar remained inside despite demands to leave.^[22]

The session resumed at 11:18 a.m., at which point Broad Front Congressman Hernando Cevallos Flores argued in support of the censure motion, urging Congress to immediately address the matter of confidence as “the will of the country.”^[22] Vásquez, however, denied Cevallos’s request to grant Del Solar the floor. Cevallos concluded his statement by challenging the Congress’s current direction, urging President Vizcarra to “close this Congress.”^[22]

Congressman Gilbert Violeta of the Contigo party criticized the motion of censure, accusing its supporters of seeking “the political and economic destruction of Peru.” He argued that the executive branch was infringing upon legislative autonomy and dared President Vizcarra to dissolve Congress if he intended to do so. APRA Congressman Mauricio Mulder echoed these criticisms, claiming that the government sought to extend control over the Constitutional Court and other judicial bodies by blocking new appointments, and argued that the legislature should act swiftly to fill these roles.^[22]

Ultimately, Congress voted on the censure motion, with 83 members opposing it, 29 supporting it, and 2 abstaining.^[22]

At 11:36 a.m. on September 30, 2019, Congressman Pedro Olaechea resumed presiding over the Peruvian Congress during a session marked by significant tension over the appointment of Constitutional Court judges.^[23] Session minutes document that Congressman Gino Costa of the Liberal Party requested to yield his speaking time to Prime Minister Salvador del Solar. It appears that a prior conversation involving Olaechea, Del Solar, and Costa had established an agreement allowing Del Solar to address Congress for ten minutes, using Costa’s allotted time.^[23]

Following some objection and off-microphone exchanges, Olaechea clarified that Del Solar’s address was a courtesy rather than a procedural obligation, stating, "You have ten minutes, Prime Minister, and then you have to leave."^[23]

Upon receiving permission, Del Solar addressed Congress, beginning with appreciation for the opportunity yet asserting his constitutional right to speak. Citing Article 129 of the Constitution, he explained, “I am here, on the occasion in which this Congress wants to take the very important decision of electing magistrates for the Constitutional Court, the highest interpretative entity of the [Constitution] and the entity that defends the fundamental rights of the people.”^[23]

He went on to stress that the selection of Constitutional Court judges required transparency, noting that “it is important for a country that it is imperative that its magistrates are elected through a transparent procedure.”^[23] Del Solar criticized the exclusive use of the “by-invitation” selection modality since 2014, emphasizing that it had been introduced as an exceptional method but had since replaced the more transparent ordinary procedure, which allowed for public hearings and citizen input. “We are not allowing the citizenry to know who are those who are going to accede to the highest magistracy of constitutional interpretation,” he asserted, underscoring the public’s right to understand the candidates' qualifications and political affiliations.^[23]

As part of his argument, Del Solar highlighted specific examples of the Court's influence on critical societal issues, explaining, “The Constitutional Court has not only resolved cases such as ... the meritocracy criterion for teachers, affecting both educators and students’ rights; it has also deliberated on the rights of Quechua-speaking citizens to receive public services in their own language.”^[23]

Del Solar warned that proceeding with an opaque appointment process would exacerbate Peru’s ongoing “crisis of legitimacy,” an issue he had previously raised. He remarked, “When I came to this Congress to ask for the investiture ... I said what I repeat below: ‘The political crisis we are going through has become a crisis of legitimacy that has deeply wounded the confidence of the citizens in all of us.’” Urging Congress to avoid further haste, he questioned, “Why the rush? Why should the country see us as in a hurry?”^[23]

In closing, Del Solar formally presented a matter of confidence on behalf of the executive branch, contingent upon Congress implementing a transparent procedure for the Court appointments. He asked Congress to decide “whether to grant us confidence and consider ... that we must make use of transparency, or to deny it to us if it considers that it is going to go ahead with that procedure.”^[23]

At a session of the Peruvian Congress, Congresswoman Indira Huilca Flores of the New Peru party introduced a cuestión previa (point of order) requesting that Congress delay the vote on Constitutional Court magistrates until the matter of confidence, raised by the executive branch, could be addressed. This motion was rejected by a vote of 80 to 34, and Congress proceeded with the appointment process.^[24]

Congress succeeded in securing the qualified majority of 87 votes required to elect one nominee, Gonzalo Ortiz de Zevallos Olaechea, to the Constitutional Court. However, further appointments were stalled when it became evident that additional nominees lacked the necessary support.^[24] Notably, several of the nominees under consideration were reported by The New York Times to have alleged links to corruption.^[25]

In light of the stalled appointments, Congressional President Pedro Olaechea suspended the session after expediting the approval of the minutes for actions completed thus far. Congress agreed to reconvene at 4:00 p.m. to debate the matter of confidence raised by Prime Minister Salvador del Solar. Proceedings resumed at approximately 4:15 p.m., when Congress initiated debate on this executive proposal.

On September 30, 2019, at 5:33 p.m., Peruvian President Martín Vizcarra delivered a televised address to the nation, detailing the day’s Congressional activities. Vizcarra stated that Congress had, in effect, rejected the confidence motion he had previously raised, despite a technical affirmative vote. In his view, this amounted to a de facto denial of confidence, and he subsequently declared Congress dissolved.

During the congressional session, legislators proceeded with a delayed vote on the confidence motion, approving it with 50 votes in favor, 31 against, and 13 abstentions at 5:41 p.m. Despite this, Vizcarra reaffirmed his decision to dissolve Congress, citing its repeated obstruction of anti-corruption reforms and its protection of entrenched political interests.

In his address, Vizcarra explained his motivations, linking the dissolution to constitutional provisions and expressing concern over prolonged legislative resistance.^[26] He noted, "The fight against corruption and institutional strengthening were the first two pillars" of his administration and cited Congress’s systematic opposition to reforms as a contributing factor to the ongoing "political crisis." Vizcarra emphasized that his administration had "resorted three times to the question of confidence" to advance these reforms, which he argued were necessary to prevent Congress from obstructing efforts against corruption.^[26]

He also highlighted Congress’s procedural irregularities, including attempts to exclude the Prime Minister from debates and resistance to judicial reforms intended to strengthen transparency in the selection of Constitutional Court judges. According to Vizcarra, this opposition indicated an unwillingness to prioritize national interests, prompting his decision to act.^[26]

Vizcarra described the dissolution as a constitutional measure under Article 134 of the Peruvian Constitution, intended to enable a new parliamentary election that would allow the Peruvian people to decide whether the current Congress should be dissolved or reinstated. In his words, the dissolution would "provide a democratic and participatory solution to a problem that the country has been dragging for three years."^[26]

Concluding his address, Vizcarra appealed to national unity, describing the dissolution as a pivotal moment in Peru’s political history. He encouraged Peruvians to view this decision as part of a broader "fight… against one of the endemic evils" that had hindered the country’s development, expressing hope that future generations would understand "the magnitude of this fight…for Peru."^[26]

Following President Vizcarra’s announcement of Congress’s dissolution, the legislative body contested his decision, declaring him suspended from office and appointing Vice President Mercedes Aráoz as interim president. Peruvian government officials, however, deemed these actions invalid, asserting that Congress’s declarations were made after it had been officially dissolved. By the evening of September 30, crowds of Peruvians gathered outside the Legislative Palace, protesting Congress and calling for the removal of legislators. In support of Vizcarra, Peru’s Armed Forces shared a photograph from the Government Palace, affirming their recognition of him as the legitimate president and commander-in-chief.

On October 1, 2019, Aráoz resigned from the interim presidency, expressing her hope that her resignation would advance the general elections proposed by Vizcarra, which Congress had previously delayed. The President of Congress, Pedro Olaechea, reportedly reacted with surprise upon hearing of Aráoz’s resignation during an interview. No government institution or foreign nation recognized Aráoz as president during this period.

On October 10, 2019, Pedro Olaechea, serving as President of the Permanent Committee, filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court challenging President Vizcarra’s dissolution of Congress. On January 9, 2020, the Constitutional Court of Peru ruled that the dissolution of Congress on September 30, 2019, was constitutional and dismissed Olaechea’s claim. The court also determined that Congress’s actions to block the executive branch from raising matters of confidence were unconstitutional.

The Court noted that while a formal vote is typically required to confirm confidence, certain actions by Congress can implicitly indicate a denial. By proceeding with the selection of Constitutional Court magistrates despite repeated requests for suspension, Congress effectively rejected the confidence request. The Court concluded that Vizcarra’s decision to dissolve Congress was consistent with the Constitution, recognizing that Congress was fully aware of the terms of the confidence request but continued with the selection process.

President Vizcarra issued a decree setting January 26, 2020, as the date for legislative elections.^[9] The Organization of American States (OAS) issued a statement supporting Vizcarra’s call for elections, noting that the Constitutional Court could evaluate the legality of his actions. The OAS described the decree as a “constructive step,” emphasizing that the elections adhered to constitutional timelines and that the ultimate decision would rest with the Peruvian people.^[27]

The Wall Street Journal described President Vizcarra's decision to dissolve Congress as resembling the 1992 parliamentary coup led by then-President Alberto Fujimori. Journalist Mary O'Grady further asserted in an op-ed that Vizcarra’s actions constituted a coup d'état and deemed the dismissal of Congress illegal. In contrast, The Economist argued that Vizcarra’s move did not equate to a coup, noting the absence of military force and judiciary dismissals, which characterized Fujimori's actions. The publication also highlighted that, if Congress disbanded, a 27-member “permanent committee” would still serve as a check on presidential power. Meanwhile, Christine Armario of the Associated Press stated that the dissolution of Congress had created Peru’s deepest constitutional crisis in nearly 30 years. Armario also observed the political irony: while Fujimori dissolved Congress in 1992 to consolidate power, his daughter’s political party now faced a similar fate with the legislature’s closure.

Several lawmakers, particularly Fujimorists and other opposition members, characterized President Vizcarra’s dissolution of Congress as a “coup” or “self-coup.”^[2][5][4][6] Right-leaning congress members suggested that Vizcarra was collaborating with leftist factions, warning that his actions risked steering Peru toward “another Venezuela.”^[28] Jorge Del Castillo, former Mayor of Lima and attorney, urged the Peruvian armed forces and national police to withhold support from what he called a “coup d’état,” predicting that Vizcarra and his ministers would face imprisonment. Juan Sheput, co-founder of the Contigo party, similarly criticized Vizcarra, describing him as behaving “like any dictator” in seeking to dissolve Congress.^[3]

Public opinion polls by the Institute of Peruvian Studies (IEP) showed that 84% of respondents approved of Vizcarra's move to dissolve Congress.^[29] A similar poll by Peruvian pollster CPI found 89.5% of respondents supported the dissolution of Congress.^[30]

The contested President Martín Vizcarra questioned the legality of the Congressional inauguration of Vice President Mercedes Aráoz as Interim President and the members involved in this act of challenge of authority.

You can't just say 'I've sworn in as President, but I was just kidding.'^[31] Swearing into a public office in a legislative institution in front of a congressional audience is a legal action in the moment.^{[This quote needs a citation]}

• 2022 Peruvian political crisis

• Rubio Correa, Marcial Antonio (2022). La primera disolución constitucional del Congreso de la República [The First Constitutional Dissolution of the Congress of the Republic] (in Spanish). Lima: Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Editorial Fund. ISBN 978-612-317-809-3.