Executive observed law that guarantees full refund of money from Fonavi

Yesterday, the Executive Branch observed the signature of the law that guarantees compliance with the return of money from the National Housing Fund (Fonavi) (Law 31173), which was approved by a majority in the plenary session of Congress in mid-January and determines that Give the Fonavistas both your input and that of their employers. The social debt amounts to S/ 42,008 million.

This initiative is based on rulings of the Constitutional Court (TC), which determine that this money is of a private nature, and therefore, not returning it would violate the property rights of 2 million older adults.

Palace grounds

Through a document signed by President Pedro Castillo and Premier Aníbal Torres, they allege that the S/ 42,008 million is six times more than the S/ 6,694 million contributed only by the workers, an amount that the Executive will consider for the long-awaited return.

Even, according to the head of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), Óscar Graham, a complementary bond is planned so that the Fonavistas do not lack liquidity while the return is scheduled. Said counterproposal was not considered by the Government when observing this law.

The Executive emphasizes that the resources involved for the return of Fonavi represent 21% of the public sector budget for this year, and will also require allocating 35% of ordinary resources – for which resources assigned to public entities for health, education will be redirected and social programs–, for which it is unfeasible to program said spending immediately, since the sustainability of the coming years is put at risk.

“Beyond how excessively onerous and burdensome it is for public finances to face a payment of such magnitude, it must be specified that the autograph considers, in an unjustified manner, the return of contributions to all Fonavistas, even those who have already benefited from housing, electricity and water. She also understands the discounts made by her employers, including the State and others”, they underline.

In that sense, from the Federation of Fonavistas they regret that S/ 36,000 million are unknown, so now each member would receive an average of S/ 3,000. If the autograph is respected, each one on average would receive no less than S / 15,000.

What if he goes to CT?

In case the Congress approves by insistence this questioned autograph, the Executive is in its right to present a claim of unconstitutionality to the TC even if the initiative in question has sentences that support it.

Constitutionalist Omar Cairo recalls that a possible change in the TC’s criteria is difficult to justify and requires solid arguments and to counteract what was previously approved.

“That the TC says before that it is constitutional, does not prevent the Government from saying otherwise. A lawsuit is filed pretending that the court changes its criteria but the change of criteria has to be explained and it is very difficult to justify. The TC would have to present a solid argument.” ❖

The support of the TC to the cause of the fonavistas

The TC specified in file 0001-1999-PI/TC that the State must return all the money from Fonavi, including that destined for a different use for the construction of a home for the contributor.

After validating the referendum to approve the Law for the return of Fonavi and its private nature, with judgment 007-2012-PI/TC, they specified that the State generated a debt with Fonavi since it used the money for another purpose. These contributions must be returned to a fund for the housing of the fonavista who requires it.

With 0008-2017-PI/TC, they concluded that the return formula must consider the total contributions.

The word

Omar Cairo, constitutionalist

“The fact that the TC says before that it is constitutional, does not prevent the Government from giving an opinion to the contrary (…) the change of criteria has to be explained and it is very difficult to justify. The TC would have to present a solid argument.”