“A proposal would reorganize the Judiciary of Peru and allow the President of Peru to remove judges deemed "traitors to the homeland."”

The opinion discusses Peruvian reform bills that would reorganize justice institutions and raise concerns about the dismissal of judicial and prosecutorial officials. It warns that such reforms can affect judicial independence, but it does not describe a constitutional provision allowing the President personally to remove judges as "traitors to the homeland."

The press release describes bill 8678/2024-CR, presented by Congressman Waldemar José Cerrón Rojas, which would create a congressional oversight commission for judges and prosecutors. The President of the Judiciary, Javier Arévalo Vela, states that “Congress wants to review the decisions of judges, and that implies interference of the Legislative in the Judicial Power”. He adds that “this law is contrary to the Constitution, which guarantees judicial independence, and, moreover, it is a law that has an authoritarian whiff,” and calls for the bill to be archived as inopportune and unconstitutional.

The draft constitutional reform bill introduces a new ground for the removal of judges by the President of the Republic, namely for acts considered as 'betrayal of the homeland'. According to the draft, the President would be empowered to decree the removal of judges or prosecutors designated as 'traitors to the homeland', following a declaration by Congress. The Venice Commission notes that vesting the executive with the power to dismiss judges for vaguely defined 'betrayal of the homeland' is incompatible with international standards on judicial independence. It expresses concern that this reform would allow political authorities to target members of the judiciary perceived as opponents.

Human Rights Watch notes that in 2024, the Peruvian Congress “approved laws and adopted other decisions that undermined judicial independence, weakened democratic institutions, and obstructed investigations into organized crime, corruption, and human rights violations.” It reports that during 2024, Congress continued its efforts to weaken the National Board of Justice (JNJ), “the body in charge of appointing and removing judges, prosecutors, and electoral authorities,” and that a constitutional reform was approved in committee to eliminate the JNJ and transfer the power to appoint and remove electoral authorities to Congress.

Human Rights Watch criticizes the Peruvian Congress for arbitrarily removing two members of the National Board of Justice (JNJ), stating that this decision “seriously undermines judicial independence, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights.” It explains that under Peru’s constitution, Congress may only remove JNJ members for “serious cause,” and warns of ongoing attacks on judicial independence through legislative initiatives targeting the JNJ and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

In late 2024 and early 2025, Peru’s Congress introduced a package of constitutional amendments that would significantly reorganize the judiciary and the institutions that govern it. Among the most controversial proposals is a provision that would allow the president to remove judges and prosecutors deemed 'traitors to the homeland' once Congress has so declared them. Critics argue that the combination of congressional designation and presidential removal would effectively give the political branches a tool to intimidate or purge judges whose rulings are deemed politically inconvenient.

Peru’s Congress has debated initiatives that would weaken the National Board of Justice and increase political control over the judiciary. Some draft proposals contemplate classifying judges and prosecutors who are perceived to favour anti‑government protesters as 'terrorists' or 'traitors to the homeland'. Human Rights Watch warned that proposals that would allow political authorities to remove judges on such grounds are a serious threat to judicial independence, but at the time of writing these measures had not been formally adopted.

OjoPúblico reports that after disputes with the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the National Board of Justice, six congressional caucuses are promoting at least ten bills “to limit the powers of judges, subject them to political oversight and impose controversial sanctions.” One initiative, presented by Alejandro Muñante Barrios, proposes criminal penalties of 8 to 12 years in prison for judges and prosecutors who release people caught in flagrante delicto. Another bill would allow sentences of 10 to 15 years in prison for justice officials in certain cases. The article frames these measures as attempts to increase congressional and political control over the judiciary.

Peru’s congress has been mulling changes that would amount to a far‑reaching overhaul of Peru’s justice system. Though specific provisions have yet to be announced, the same parties seek to oust the country’s National Justice Board, which administers the judiciary. Rights groups warn that some mooted reforms could allow the president and congress to label judges as 'traitors to the homeland' and remove them, a move they say would accelerate Peru’s democratic backsliding.

The report covers UN experts’ condemnation of the dismissal of Judge Oswaldo Ordóñez Alcántara, describing it as a reprisal for his defense of judicial independence and criticism of legislative reforms. The piece notes that the National Board of Justice of Peru initiated a preliminary investigation, arguing his statements affected the appearance of impartiality. The article does not mention any proposal to let the president remove judges deemed traitors to the homeland; instead it focuses on actions by judicial and legislative bodies.

During the review period, Congress introduced several initiatives to restructure the judiciary and to curtail the autonomy of the National Board of Justice. One controversial draft constitutional amendment would reorganize the judiciary and introduce a mechanism under which judges or prosecutors who are declared 'traitors to the homeland' by Congress could be dismissed by the president. Although the proposal had not yet been enacted, domestic and international observers criticized it as an attempt to exert political pressure on the courts.

Under the current 1993 Constitution, as revised in 2021, the President of the Republic may only be charged during his term of office for: committing high treason; preventing presidential, congressional, regional or municipal elections; dissolving Congress, except in the case provided for in Article 134 of the Constitution; and preventing the meeting or functioning of Congress, the National Elections Board (JNE) or other electoral bodies. The Constitution does not grant the president authority to remove judges. Judicial appointments, ratifications and removals are the responsibility of the National Board of Justice and other judicial organs, not the executive.

The article recalls that on 5 April 1992 President Alberto Fujimori ordered the reorganization of the Judiciary and the deactivation of the Constitutional Guarantee Tribunal. It is historical context for executive interference in the judiciary, not evidence about the current proposal or any present power to remove judges labeled traitors.

In 2019 and 2020, the Peruvian government amended its Constitution and passed an organic law to create the Junta Nacional de Justicia (JNJ), a new independent body charged with the vetting of new and sitting judges. The constitutional reform removes the CNM as the vetting agency for the judiciary and replaces it with the JNJ. The JNJ is constitutionally empowered to select judges and prosecutors through merit‑based contests, to vet sitting judges and prosecutors, and to sanction and remove judges of the Supreme Court and lower courts. The reforms do not provide the president with power to appoint or remove judges.

This historical note recounts that on May 29, 1997 Peru’s Congress, controlled by President Alberto Fujimori’s supporters, summarily fired three judges of the Constitutional Court who opposed Fujimori’s re-election. It describes the bill brought by the governing coalition to remove the judges for an alleged unauthorized assumption of authority. The document shows that in the 1990s Congress could remove judges, but it does not mention any power of the president to directly remove judges for treason to the homeland.

The Political Constitution of Peru establishes that the President of the Republic can only be accused, during his term, for treason; for preventing presidential, parliamentary, regional or municipal elections; for dissolving Congress, except in cases authorized by the Constitution; and for preventing the meeting or functioning of Congress or electoral bodies. Matters relating to the appointment, ratification, discipline and removal of judges correspond to the judiciary and the National Board of Justice. The Constitution does not empower the President of the Republic to remove judges, whether or not they are considered 'traitors to the homeland'.

The report analyses past attempts by Peruvian authorities to interfere with judicial independence, including efforts under the Fujimori regime to control judicial appointments and removals. It notes that, under Peru’s constitutional framework, the executive does not have direct authority to remove judges; such powers lie with judicial and oversight bodies. The ICJ warns that any reform that would give the president the power to dismiss judges would run counter to international standards on the separation of powers and judicial independence.

The report says recent Peruvian legislative initiatives have generated reactions because they amount to "an intrusion of political power into matters that should be exclusively for the Judiciary." It cites criticism that these actions seek to concentrate more power through discretionary control of justice institutions, but it does not show a law granting the President direct dismissal power over judges accused of treason.

This legal news site summarizes Human Rights Watch’s 2025 World Report chapter on Peru, noting that in 2024 “the Congress of Peru approved laws and adopted other decisions that undermined judicial independence, weakened democratic institutions and obstructed investigations into organized crime, corruption and human rights violations.” It recounts that Congress pursued a constitutional reform to eliminate the National Board of Justice (JNJ) and assume control over the appointment and removal of electoral authorities. The article refers to congressional encroachment on the judiciary but does not mention a proposal empowering the President to summarily dismiss judges as “traitors to the homeland.”

The article discusses the political nature of Peru’s judicial reform and notes that the executive has historically influenced reform processes. It is useful background on institutional debates, but it does not establish the specific claim that the current President may remove judges deemed traitors to the homeland.

Available reporting about Peru’s judiciary since 2022 focuses on congressional moves to weaken or eliminate the National Board of Justice (JNJ), expand political control over judges and prosecutors, and create oversight mechanisms that critics consider unconstitutional. These initiatives are attributed mainly to Congress and, to a lesser extent, to legislative alliances, not to any formal proposal to reorganize the Judiciary in a way that would grant the President explicit authority to summarily remove judges deemed “traitors to the homeland.” No major Peruvian or international outlet of record is known to describe such a presidential power as part of an actual bill or government proposal.