a campaign to tear down the electoral process and erase the will of voters
En el período posterior a las elecciones peruanas del 12 de abril, la disputa sobre quién tiene derecho a cuestionar los resultados ha migrado de las urnas a los tribunales. Ernesto Zunini, secretario general de Juntos por el Perú, denuncia lo que describe como una campaña orquestada para erosionar la legitimidad del proceso electoral mediante recursos judiciales sistemáticos, señalando tanto a Renovación Popular como al alcalde de Lima, Renzo Reggiardo. En el fondo de esta controversia late una pregunta más antigua: cuándo la impugnación legal fortalece la democracia y cuándo la socava.
- Zunini acusa al alcalde Reggiardo de violar las normas de neutralidad electoral al presentar una queja legal sobre fallas logísticas en Lima, argumentando que carecía de legitimidad para hacerlo.
- El verdadero punto de alarma es estructural: las tres quejas electorales de Renovación Popular habrían recaído, sin excepción, en el mismo Noveno Juzgado Constitucional, desafiando el principio de asignación aleatoria de casos.
- Juntos por el Perú respondió presentando contra-quejas formales, convirtiendo el litigio en un litigio sobre el litigio mismo y escalando la tensión institucional.
- La alianza electoral del partido con Antauro Humala —figura condenada por la muerte de cuatro policías— añade una capa de vulnerabilidad política a sus denuncias, aunque Zunini insiste en que fue un acuerdo puramente electoral sin reconocimiento formal.
- El resultado es un momento poselectoral en el que la legitimidad del voto se debate no en las calles sino en los juzgados, y donde la confianza en las instituciones arbitrales es el verdadero terreno en disputa.
Días después de las elecciones peruanas del 12 de abril, Ernesto Zunini Yerren, secretario general de Juntos por el Perú, describió lo que considera un ataque coordinado contra la legitimidad del proceso electoral. En su relato, la ofensiva proviene de Renovación Popular y de sus aliados en el gobierno, en particular del alcalde de Lima, Renzo Reggiardo, quien presentó una queja legal por problemas logísticos que afectaron a votantes en la capital.
Zunini argumentó que Reggiardo carecía de base legal para actuar así, citando al constitucionalista Natale Primo, quien habría señalado que las competencias del municipio no fueron afectadas por las fallas organizativas. Juntos por el Perú respondió con una contra-denuncia por violación a las normas de neutralidad electoral.
Pero la preocupación más profunda de Zunini apuntaba al sistema judicial. Su partido había detectado que las tres quejas electorales presentadas por Renovación Popular habían sido asignadas, en todos los casos, al mismo Noveno Juzgado Constitucional. Para Zunini, esto violaba el principio de asignación aleatoria de causas y era evidencia de una campaña deliberada para desacreditar el proceso y borrar la voluntad de los votantes. El partido presentó una queja formal sobre este patrón.
Cuando se le preguntó por la polémica alianza electoral con Antauro Humala —condenado por su papel en la muerte de cuatro policías en Andahuaylazo de 2005— Zunini fue cuidadoso: describió el acuerdo como puramente electoral, sin reconocimiento formal ni vínculo ideológico. Ninguno de los cuatro candidatos que compitieron bajo esa alianza resultó electo.
Lo que quedó de su testimonio fue el retrato de un país donde el consenso sobre la legitimidad electoral se ha vuelto frágil, y donde impugnar las impugnaciones se ha convertido en la nueva forma de hacer política.
In the days after Peru's April 12 elections, Ernesto Zunini Yerren, the general secretary of Juntos por el Perú, sat down to describe what he saw as a coordinated assault on the legitimacy of the vote itself. The attack, he argued, was coming not just from the opposition party Renovación Popular, but from its allies in government—specifically Lima's mayor, Renzo Reggiardo, who had filed a legal complaint about logistical problems that affected voters in the capital.
Zunini's complaint was precise. He said Reggiardo had violated electoral neutrality laws by filing that complaint, arguing that the mayor had no legal standing to do so. Constitutional scholar Natale Primo, Zunini noted, had already stated that the city government's competencies were not actually affected by the election's organizational failures. Yet the complaint had been filed anyway. Juntos por el Perú responded by filing a counter-complaint against Reggiardo for breaching neutrality rules.
But the real alarm, in Zunini's view, lay deeper in the judicial system. His party had noticed something troubling: every single complaint filed by Renovación Popular related to the elections had landed in the Ninth Constitutional Court. Three complaints, three times the same judge. This, he argued, violated the principle of random case assignment—a foundational rule meant to prevent the appearance of bias or manipulation. Junitos por el Perú filed a formal complaint about this pattern, treating it as evidence of something larger: what Zunini called a "campaign" to tear down the electoral process and erase the will of voters.
When asked about his party's own controversial alliance with Antauro Humala—a figure imprisoned for his role in the deaths of four police officers in Andahuaylas in 2005—Zunini was careful with his language. He said the arrangement was electoral, not political or ideological. Four candidates had run under the alliance: two for the Senate, two for the Chamber of Deputies. None had won. Humala was not a party member, not part of the party's formal structures. Zunini, speaking as general secretary, stopped short of even calling it an alliance, since it had no formal recognition.
What emerged from his account was a portrait of a post-election moment in Peru marked by mutual accusations of bad faith. Zunini saw a pattern—complaints filed in sequence, all routed to the same courtroom, all designed to delegitimize an election his party had participated in. Whether that pattern reflected actual coordination or coincidence remained unclear. But the fact that a party secretary felt compelled to map it out, to file complaints about the complaints, suggested how fragile the consensus around electoral legitimacy had become.
Notable Quotes
This is a campaign to bring down the electoral process and disregard the popular vote— Ernesto Zunini Yerren, general secretary of Juntos por el Perú
The agreement with Antauro Humala is electoral, not political or ideological— Ernesto Zunini Yerren
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
When Zunini says there's a campaign to "bring down the electoral process," what does he mean by that exactly?
He means that through legal challenges—complaints filed in court—the opposition is trying to create enough doubt about the election's validity that the results themselves become questioned. It's not about winning individual cases; it's about delegitimizing the outcome.
But he filed counter-complaints. Isn't that the same tactic?
Yes, which is the irony. Both sides are using the courts as a political weapon. Zunini sees himself as defending the election; Renovación Popular likely sees itself the same way.
The pattern he identified—three cases in the same court—is that actually suspicious?
It could be. Random assignment is supposed to prevent exactly this. But three cases is a small sample. It could be coincidence. The real question is whether anyone can prove it wasn't.
What about the Antauro Humala connection? Why does that matter?
Because it makes Juntos por el Perú vulnerable to the same accusations they're making. If they can be accused of using questionable alliances, they lose moral standing to complain about others' tactics.
Did the alliance actually help them?
No. None of the four candidates they ran won. So it was a failed gamble, which makes the whole thing even messier—they took the political risk and got nothing for it.