According to parliamentarians of the ruling party, Miguel Crispi cannot technically be a public official, because he was hired on an honorary basis.
By six votes in favor and three against, the investigation commission of the Chamber of Deputies will appeal to the Comptroller’s Office, amid controversy over the new denial of Miguel Crispi attending the moment, also marked the debate whether he was a public official or not.
It was agreed in a tense session of the House, amid criticism between the opposition and the ruling party, which accused the head of advisers of La Moneda of persecution.
Let’s remember that the former parliamentarian is needed for his role when he was Undersecretary of Social Development and the link to the foundations that were questioned in the so-called Agreements Case.
This is a craft designed by the team at deputy and president of the investigative commission, José Miguel Castro, WHERE requested that the Comptroller’s Office rule on the possible punishment to be imposed on Crispi, for being absent for the second time in a row.
But, as warned by PPD deputy Raúl Soto, This letter does not contain a clear request to the controlling entity to clear a doubt that arose in the National Congress, which is technical, but also has a political relationship, about if Miguel Crispi has the status of a public official.
The ruling party said, for example, that the fact that he is a fee-based consultant may mean, on a technical level, that he is not a public official and that his actions are not necessarily administrative responsibility. , so he is not obliged to attend the summons, but it is an optional invitation.
In that sense, Deputy Castro points out that the request contains this doubt and that the Comptroller’s Office, to resolve this political point made, in any case, should rule on this matter.
In any case, similar to the commission, the Deputy of UDI, Jorge Alessandri, will also send a letter to the Comptroller’s Office, precisely, to clarify this suspicion if Miguel Crispi is technically a public official or not.
“Let’s ask the Comptroller’s Office: Is Mr. Crispy? Are you a public official? Do you have the right to have your defense billed? Do you have the right to use a tax vehicle? Do you have the right to be absent to lead your defense? And the Comptroller’s Office should tell us in what capacity it is for the State, what are its responsibilities and what are its guarantees,” said the union parliamentarian.
The ruling party assured that Miguel Crispi is not a public official
In this regard, the Deputy of the Democratic Revolution, Ericka Ñanco, emphasized that Miguel Crispi is not a public official, because he was hired on an honorary basis.
“I have a legal doubt if Mr. Miguel Crispi has an obligation not only because of the type of contract he has but also because of the type of issue he will ask about, issues that refer to regional governments. , which “is outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the investigation commission,” says the deputy Mercedes Bulnes.
In any case, the official deputy of the PPD, Raúl Soto, criticized the absence of Crispi, ensuring that “we are doing the Government a disservice by creating corporate defenses.”
“What Miguel Crispi has done is lack of respect for the power of the State by not attending. The damage done to our government is so great, it reveals President Boric who must give explanations,” he said.
Meanwhile, Deputy Gonzalo Winter accused of an attempt to “mud” Miguel Crispi, because, in his opinion, “he was invited to create a blanket of doubts, they are not interested in clarifying the facts.”
“You shot yourself in the foot, all we have to do is show our faces,” Soto replied.
But also, the UDI Deputy, Juan Manuel Fuenzalida, explained that there are details to be consulted with Crispi. “Let’s not look for subterfuges,” he said, also directly calling on Deputy Winter to “not be silly,” after he interrupted her speech.
The tension is recognized even in the socialist deputy, Marco Ilabaca, who said it was “sad to see how pitiful we looked.”
Meanwhile, the deputy and president of the investigative commission, Juan Miguel Castro, asked if he could not be called a public official, pointing out that he sent his answer from an institutional email.
However, his interventions also generated criticism from the opposition, which questioned him in his role as president of the body, accusing him of a lack of impartiality.
As it is, in the end, the Comptroller’s Office had to settle the discussion, which again created tensions between the ruling party and the Congress opposition.
