This is how Sergio Muñoz evaluated the failed claim to remove Defender of Children

The Supreme Court released this Friday the 30th the full text with which it rejected by 20 votes to 1 the removal of Patricia Muñoz from her position as Defender of Children. The request was made by deputies from Chile Vamos who were led by RN Tomás Fuentes. On March 15, the court decided not to accept the request, but the arguments were not known.

© Provided by Publimetro

Publimetro ChileMarch 15, 2021

A great tourniquet was jumped: the Supreme Court rejected the request for the removal of an ombudsman for Children

In 27 pages, the ministers give an account of their reasons against the request, which was partly triggered after a video made by the Ombudsman’s Office where they spoke of “skipping all the turnstiles.” This was seen by the claimants as a reference to the social outbreak of October 18, 2019. It upset them and led them to submit the brief.

The phrase reason for the annoyance is: “All that false morality has already collapsed, the banners show social demand, I feel that you must empower yourself and fly, skip all the turnstiles …”.

However, among the reasoning of the majority vote there is a part that attracts attention. The ministers Sergio Muñoz, Haroldo Brito and Jorge Dahm were in favor not only of rejecting the claim, but also that the petitioners pay the costs, “In view of the unfoundedness of the request presented and, therefore, the sterile burden that its processing has meant for its counterpart and for the State.”

Muñoz and Brito presided over the Supreme Court in previous periods.

The bottom

And about the video of the turnstiles, the supreme say that “the work that has been objected to, has had to be analyzed according to the purpose taken into account for its design (…), the awareness of children and adolescents about the existence and qualities of the rights of which they are holders, inviting them – in a form and with a similar language – to participate in social life, which has been tried, trying to move away, at the same time, from a paternalistic or adult-centered perspective ”They say.

“The literal selection of its terms, although it may not be shared or is susceptible to more conciliatory alternative versions, loses weight in the face of the message that is being formulated,” the magistrates maintain.

And they put the tombstone to the desire of the parliamentarians with the following reasoning: “The sole circumstance that the postulate falls within the scope of the debatable, allows to ratify the conviction about the absence of entity of the events aired to configure the cause of manifest negligence and inexcusable that it has been invoked ”.

Anyway, there was a minister who was about to remove Muñoz: Arturo Prado.

Leave a Comment