No ha omitido la información sobre sentencia alguna en su contra
En el Perú de las vísperas electorales, los tribunales se convierten en el primer campo de batalla antes de que los ciudadanos emitan su voto. El Jurado Electoral Especial de Lima Centro 2 determinó el 10 de febrero que el expresidente Martín Vizcarra no ocultó información relevante en su declaración jurada, despejando así su camino como candidato al Congreso por Somos Perú. La decisión reafirma una verdad antigua en la vida democrática: que la exclusión de un candidato exige causas precisas y probadas, no meras sospechas ni disputas políticas disfrazadas de impugnaciones legales.
- Tres impugnantes —una excongresfuturista fujimorista, una excandidata aprista y un exmiembro de Alianza para el Progreso— intentaron sacar a Vizcarra de la carrera electoral alegando que ocultó su participación en una empresa agrícola.
- Vizcarra respondió que la empresa Agrotécnica Estuquiña fue desactivada en 2007 y nunca generó ingresos, por lo que no había nada que declarar.
- El JEE revisó los únicos supuestos que la ley electoral contempla para excluir a un candidato y concluyó que ninguno de ellos se cumplía en este caso.
- Aunque Vizcarra enfrenta tres procesos judiciales en Pichanaqui y La Merced —todos promovidos por el mismo demandante— ninguno ha derivado en una condena firme que active la causal de exclusión.
- Con este fallo, el JEE confirma la decisión previa del JNE del 3 de febrero, y Vizcarra mantiene su candidatura rumbo a las elecciones generales del 11 de abril.
El Jurado Electoral Especial de Lima Centro 2 rechazó el 10 de febrero la solicitud de exclusión presentada contra el expresidente Martín Vizcarra, candidato al Congreso por Somos Perú. El tribunal determinó, mediante la resolución 00548-2021, que Vizcarra no omitió información sobre sentencias condenatorias en su hoja de vida, que era el único fundamento legal que podría haber justificado su retiro de la contienda.
La controversia surgió a partir de impugnaciones presentadas por Yeni Vilcatoma, Mónica Yaya y José Medina, quienes alegaban que el exmandatario había ocultado su participación del 30 por ciento en la empresa Agrotécnica Estuquiña. Vizcarra sostuvo que la firma fue desactivada en 2007 y nunca produjo ingresos, por lo que no correspondía incluirla en su declaración patrimonial.
El JEE analizó las causales taxativas de exclusión contempladas en la ley electoral —entre ellas, omitir condenas penales firmes, deudas alimentarias o hallazgos de violencia familiar— y concluyó que ninguna aplicaba al caso. Si bien Vizcarra registra tres procesos judiciales en Pichanaqui y La Merced, todos iniciados por el mismo demandante, Elías Gerardo Valdez Cerazo, ninguno ha concluido con una sentencia condenatoria firme.
Esta resolución ratifica el fallo que el Jurado Nacional de Elecciones había emitido el 3 de febrero, cuando ya había revocado la orden de exclusión inicial y permitido a Vizcarra continuar en la carrera. Con dos instancias electorales respaldando su candidatura, el camino hacia los comicios del 11 de abril quedó despejado.
A Lima court tribunal has cleared the path for former president Martín Vizcarra to remain a congressional candidate. The Electoral Special Court of Lima Centro 2 ruled on February 10 that there was no basis to exclude him from the ballot, rejecting claims that he had hidden information on his official candidacy form.
The dispute centered on what Vizcarra did and did not disclose in his sworn statement of assets and background. Three challengers—Yeni Vilcatoma, a former congresswoman aligned with Fujimori's party; Mónica Yaya, a former congressional candidate from the APRA party; and José Medina, a former member of Alliance for Progress—had filed objections arguing that Vizcarra omitted details about his holdings in a company called Agrotécnica Estuquiña. Specifically, they contended he failed to report a 30 percent stake in the firm. Vizcarra's position was that the company had been deactivated in 2007 and had generated no income since, making it unnecessary to list as an asset or income source.
The court's formal resolution, numbered 00548-2021, examined whether Vizcarra had violated the specific grounds for candidate exclusion. Those grounds are narrow: omitting information about final criminal convictions for intentional crimes, omitting information about court rulings on unpaid child support or contractual and labor obligations, omitting information about family violence findings, or falsifying income and asset declarations. The tribunal determined that none of these conditions applied. Vizcarra had not hidden any criminal sentences against him, the court found, and therefore had not violated the rules that would trigger his removal from the race.
The ruling came as confirmation of an earlier decision. On February 3, the National Electoral Jury—Peru's highest electoral authority—had already overturned the initial exclusion order and allowed Vizcarra to stay in the race. That body had sided with the legal representative of Vizcarra's party, Somos Perú, finding merit in their appeal.
Vizcarra does face three separate legal proceedings. Two are in a single-judge court in Pichanaqui, and one is in the appellate criminal chamber in La Merced. All three cases were initiated by the same plaintiff, Elías Gerardo Valdez Cerazo. Two of the cases involve habeas corpus motions, and the third is under appeal. But the electoral court determined that the existence of these proceedings did not constitute grounds for barring him from candidacy, since none had resulted in the kind of final conviction that would trigger exclusion under electoral law.
With this decision, Vizcarra's path to the April 11 general election remained open. The former president, who had served as Peru's chief executive before his removal from office, was running for Congress under the Somos Perú banner. The electoral machinery had now twice affirmed his right to compete.
Citações Notáveis
El candidato no ha omitido la información en la declaración jurada de hoja de vida sobre la existencia de sentencia alguna en su contra— Resolución 00548-2021 del JEE Lima Centro 2
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did the court need to rule on this at all? What was the actual accusation?
Three political figures challenged his candidacy, saying he'd hidden information about a company stake on his official form. They claimed he owned 30 percent of a firm but didn't disclose it.
And his defense was what—that the company was worthless?
Essentially, yes. He argued the company had shut down in 2007 and hadn't made money since, so there was nothing to report as income or as an active asset.
Did the court buy that argument?
The court didn't have to. They looked at the specific legal grounds for excluding a candidate, and they found he hadn't violated any of them. No hidden criminal convictions, no hidden family violence rulings, no false income statements. The company question didn't fit the exclusion criteria.
So the court was saying the accusers were wrong about what the law requires?
More or less. The court was saying that even if there was a dispute about the company disclosure, it wasn't the kind of omission that disqualifies you from running for Congress.
Had anyone else already ruled on this?
Yes. The National Electoral Jury, the highest authority, had already decided in his favor on February 3. This court decision just confirmed that.
So he was always going to run?
Once the top electoral body sided with him, yes. This ruling just made it official at the lower court level.