The Constitution Commission of the Chamber of Deputies generally approved the bill that seeks to lower the quorum for constitutional reforms to 4/7.
The motion, which specifically enables an alternative to reform the current Constitution in the event that the Rejection triumphs in the next exit plebiscite on September 4, was approved by 11 votes in favor, 1 against and 0 abstentions.
The initiative, presented in June by senators DC Matías Walker, Ximena Rincón and Iván Flores, and their independent-PPD counterpart, Pedro Araya, had the support of deputies Karol Cariola (PC); Jorge Alessandri (UDI); Joanna Perez (DC); Camila Flores (RN); Marcos Ilabaca (PS); Pamela Jiles (Ind); Raúl Leiva (PS); Andres Longton (RN); Leonardo Soto (PS) and Gonzalo Winter (CS) and Catalina Pérez (RD). While the Republican Luis Sánchez voted against.
The Minister of the General Secretariat of the Presidency, Giorgio Jackson, as well as the lawyer and academic Sebastián Soto also participated in the event.
In fact, Jackson said that the Executive will not oppose the project and stressed that “we welcome the fact that there is a reduction in said quorum, which puts them in the same figure, even that the general rule of quorum that also establishes the draft of the new Constitution.
However, he also assured that it is a reform that “if it is approved very soon, it would be difficult for it to be promulgated as such, or be effective before this plebiscitary event.”
In addition, he stated that “but without prejudice to which, in the event that the Rejection option were the option that generated the majority in the plebiscite, this would mean that the quorum that would govern would be lower than the current 3/5 or 4/ 7. I imagine that we all understand the same thing that we are talking about, that only in that scenario is that this bill would make sense.”
“Because in the other scenario, the other Constitution, the one of the project that emanated from the constitutional project, would begin to govern as early as October, so from the Executive we are not only not going to oppose the parliamentary motion, but we feel that It is a desire that had been raised for many decades and that, probably given the political context that we are experiencing prior to the plebiscite, certain consensuses were generated that did not exist before regarding the removal of these locks,” he added.