The manner of her departure had caused her physical and psychological harm
En los pasillos de la diplomacia chilena, donde el protocolo y la discreción son moneda corriente, la exembajadora Susana Herrera apostó por la justicia ordinaria para recuperar lo que consideraba su honor perdido. Un tribunal laboral de Santiago rechazó esta semana su demanda de 190 millones de dólares contra la Cancillería, poniendo fin —al menos por ahora— a una disputa que nació del silencio: el silencio con que Herrera gestionó un proyecto de desarrollo regional sin informar a sus superiores, y el silencio que el Estado se negó a romper con las disculpas que ella exigía. La sentencia no resuelve del todo la pregunta de fondo sobre lealtad institucional y autonomía individual, pero sí traza un límite claro entre la iniciativa personal y el mandato diplomático.
- Una exembajadora que negoció en secreto un proyecto de cinco millones de dólares con fondos vinculados a la Casa Real británica desató una crisis que cruzó fronteras y obligó a su renuncia en agosto de 2023.
- Lejos de retirarse en silencio, Herrera presentó una demanda de 190 millones de dólares y exigió disculpas públicas comunicadas formalmente a la familia real, convirtiendo su salida en un litigio de alto voltaje político.
- Durante dieciocho meses, tres intentos de acuerdo extrajudicial fracasaron uno tras otro, revelando la profundidad del antagonismo entre la exdiplomática y el Consejo de Defensa del Estado.
- El tribunal rechazó la demanda de forma categórica, pero el equipo legal de Herrera anuncia una posible apelación que mantendría vivo el escándalo diplomático y la presión sobre la Cancillería.
La apuesta judicial de Susana Herrera llegó a su fin esta semana cuando un juez laboral de Santiago rechazó su demanda de 190 millones de dólares contra la Cancillería chilena. El caso se remonta a agosto de 2023, cuando este diario reveló que la entonces embajadora ante el Reino Unido había estado promoviendo en secreto un proyecto de mercado maderero en Santa Juana —una localidad devastada por incendios forestales— con financiamiento proveniente de una fundación ligada al rey Carlos III, todo ello sin informar a sus superiores. La brecha de protocolo, agravada por el escrutinio que ya pesaba sobre las fundaciones gubernamentales, desencadenó un coro bipartidista de críticas y forzó su renuncia el 22 de agosto de ese año.
Herrera no aceptó el desenlace en silencio. En noviembre de 2023 presentó una demanda de 110 páginas en la que reclamaba compensación equivalente a once meses de salario, una disculpa pública de la Cancillería y que esa disculpa fuera comunicada formalmente a la familia real británica. Argumentó que la forma en que se gestionó su salida le causó daños físicos y psicológicos, y sostuvo —de manera provocadora— que el ministerio había estado al tanto de sus gestiones regionales desde el principio.
Lo que siguió fue un proceso de dieciocho meses marcado por el agotamiento negociador: cuatro intentos de acuerdo —en enero y julio de 2024, y en febrero y agosto de 2025— se derrumbaron sin resultado. Finalmente, el juicio oral se celebró el 31 de marzo de este año. El rechazo de la demanda fue categórico, aunque el abogado de Herrera, Miguel Ángel Reyes, señaló contradicciones entre el fallo y la evidencia presentada, y anticipó una posible apelación. Si prospera, el litigio seguirá proyectando su sombra sobre una Cancillería que, en lo demás, ya había dejado atrás el escándalo.
Susana Herrera's gamble on redemption through the courts came to an end this week when a Santiago labor judge rejected her $190 million lawsuit against Chile's Foreign Ministry. The decision closed a chapter that began in August 2023, when the then-ambassador to the United Kingdom was forced to resign after this newspaper revealed she had been quietly promoting a $5 million development project in the Biobío region without informing her superiors at the ministry.
The project itself was modest in scope but explosive in its implications. Herrera, an architect by training, had approached the regional governor with a proposal to build a timber market in Santa Juana, a town devastated by wildfires. The funding was to come from a foundation connected to King Charles III. What made it controversial was not the project's merit but its secrecy—Herrera had conducted the entire negotiation without alerting the Foreign Ministry, a breach of protocol that became public at a moment when Chilean government foundations were already under intense scrutiny. Both opposition and ruling-party lawmakers called for her head. On August 22, 2023, she resigned.
But Herrera did not accept the outcome quietly. In November 2023, she filed a labor lawsuit demanding $190 million in compensation—equivalent to her final eleven months of salary—along with a public apology from the Foreign Ministry. She wanted that apology formally communicated to the British royal family. In a 110-page filing, she argued that the manner of her departure had caused her physical and psychological harm, constituting a violation of her fundamental rights. She also claimed the ministry had treated her with discrimination and impropriety. Most provocatively, she asserted that the Foreign Ministry had actually been aware of her regional negotiations all along and had never instructed her to stop.
What followed was a grinding eighteen-month legal process marked by repeated attempts to settle. The case entered the system in November 2023. A preparatory hearing in January 2024 saw the judge try to broker a deal between Herrera and the State Defense Council, which represents the government in such disputes. It failed. In July 2024, both sides asked for a suspension to explore settlement terms. Nothing came of it. In February 2025, they tried again. Again, no agreement materialized. A third attempt in August 2025 also collapsed. By March of this year, the judge had had enough and scheduled the actual trial for March 31.
The court's rejection this week was unambiguous. Herrera's lawyer, Miguel Ángel Reyes, told reporters that his team was studying the decision and believed the evidence supported their claims of wrongdoing, pointing to what he saw as contradictions between the judge's ruling and the facts presented. But the court had spoken. The question now is whether Herrera will appeal—a move that would extend the legal battle further and keep the diplomatic embarrassment alive for the ministry, even as the broader scandal that triggered her removal has largely faded from public view.
Citações Notáveis
We are analyzing the sentence and believe the evidence confirms the violations we alleged, and there are contradictions between what was decided and the evidence presented— Miguel Ángel Reyes, Herrera's lawyer
The Foreign Ministry was always informed about these negotiations, and no authority ever instructed me to stop or follow any specific protocol— Susana Herrera, in her lawsuit filing
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did she think she could win this case? The facts seem straightforward—she acted without authorization.
Because she believed the ministry knew what she was doing. That's the crux of her defense. If she's right about that, then the real violation wasn't her initiative but the way they threw her overboard when it became public.
And the court didn't buy it?
The court said no. But notice how many times both sides tried to settle. That suggests neither party was confident. The government probably wanted to avoid a trial that would air all the details; she probably realized her evidence wasn't as strong as she hoped.
What does she lose now besides the money?
Her reputation in diplomatic circles, mostly. She's already lost the job. But a court ruling against her is different from a quiet resignation. It's a formal judgment that she acted improperly.
Will she appeal?
Her lawyer's statement suggests they think the judge got it wrong. So yes, probably. This isn't over.