Last Saturday, October 5, the minister Sergio Muñoz, through his lawyer Jorge Correa Subtleresponded to the constitutional accusation presented against him, insisting that there is no basis for it to advance in Congress.
The above, as detailed by the lawyer in conversation with The Thirdbecause it would be completely immoral and aberrant for the influential judge and president of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court to be sanctioned for acts committed by third parties.
According to what they say, they are confident that if their case is voted on separately from that of Minister Ángela Vivanco, the accusations will be dismissed, given that their main support – the statement of a Fundamenta executive who indicated that the judge would have handed over information reserved to her daughter- “it is implausible and is provided by someone who is not impartial.”
The minister is accused of leaking confidential information about the Fundamenta case to his daughter, in the middle of her business transaction. How are they going to prove that the minister did not commit the acts for which he is accused?
The minister will solemnly declare before the Chamber of Deputies, in the same way as he did in the Ethics Commission, that he has never given any information to his daughter regarding a case in agreement or this one in particular. What we are in a position to demonstrate is that the notarial statement affirmed by this accusation, which indicates that Judge Muñoz provided background information, is contradictory with a broad series of facts that are proven by documents delivered to the defense.
You have said that this is a totally partial statement.
It is quite incredible that a judge decides to give privileged information to his daughter to favor her and then makes a decision in the vote that is contrary to those interests. Judge Muñoz had no idea that his daughter had a promise of sale in that building. I believe that the accusers could reasonably have made the accusation trusting that this statement was true, but once one has all their background in view, it turns out that the statement loses all plausibility, and can no longer found an accusation.
For the rest, it is a completely partial statement, given by an employee of the company and that the next day is presented in the Supreme Court, thus obtaining not only the disqualification of Judge Muñoz, but also the annulment of the hearing of the cause.
He is also accused of not having warned that his daughter, knowing that judges must practice in accordance with the jurisdiction of their court, was working from Rome. How do you respond to that?
This accusation incurs very serious legal errors, because there is no duty on Judge Muñoz to correct or denounce his daughter. If he had done any of those things, he would have violated the law, because a Supreme Court judge cannot by himself correct a lower court judge. The Court of Appeals has to do that and, in fact, it did, and it can only reach the Supreme Court through appeal, but it never did. But if there had been that appeal, Judge Muñoz would have had to disqualify himself.
Didn’t you have a duty to report?
You have no duty to report, there is no legal obligation in this regard. But it has been proven that Graciel Muñoz and other judges who worked telematically during Covid did not commit any illicit act due to this, they have not been sanctioned. It has been estimated that this was legal in that period, but that a statement had to be made, which Judge Muñoz’s daughter did wrong, omitting some background information. And he was sanctioned not for having worked from Italy, but for having omitted background information. And well, Judge Muñoz is not reviewing the statements made by his daughter, who is 43 years old.
But he was aware that she was working from Rome.
Yes of course.
They insist that the minister cannot be tried for acts committed by third parties.
Of course, what we maintain is that it is immoral, that it is legally aberrant and that it is a violation of human rights to judge a person for the conduct of another that is unrelated to him.
Despite this, he asked that Minister Ángela Vivanco be transferred to the Ethics Commission for alleged conversations that her partner had had, an argument under which a removal notebook is also opened for the magistrate. Isn’t there a contradiction there?
I am not aware of the actions that Judge Muñoz may have had with respect to the Ethics Commission regarding Minister Vivanco. Without that information, I prefer not to express an opinion.
The story continues below
More about Supreme Court
Did you request it to clarify whether there was interference from the now suspended minister?
It is possible that it was to clear up or investigate her involvement.
They stated that with these accusations they would be seeking to make the righteous pay for sinners. Do you think it is Minister Vivanco’s situation that has “dragged” Minister Muñoz into this scenario?
What we say is that accusing a person for the behavior of another is an issue that Western civilization abandoned since the Middle Ages. That can’t be done. We do not know who the righteous or the sinners are, but having to say that two people are guilty because one is, or having to say that two people are innocent because one is, is absurd. You cannot analyze the responsibility of two people together for unrelated conduct. That’s what’s aberrant.
Do you see political motivations behind it?
We prefer not to assume any intention.
The thing is that Judge Muñoz has been a magistrate who has generated discomfort, from certain sectors he has been accused of being an activist. Could it be an attempt to level the playing field?
Judge Muñoz has many extraordinarily controversial decisions. If you want to accuse him of that, fine, but if a person makes controversial decisions and is accused of dishonesty, immorality is being committed.
But do you think that this political tie is being sought? That if Vivanco, which has been linked to the right, falls, a judge linked to the “opposing side” must also be sanctioned.
I prefer not to qualify any intention.
What actions will follow with a view to voting on the facts separately?
We are going to deduce the previous question by saying that it cannot meet the requirements that the Constitution establishes, since it is an accusation that flagrantly violates the Constitution, due process, violates the right to defense and violates the basic principle that it is answered only by own and guilty acts. We hope that this allegation can lead the House to make the decision to separate the two accusations that are attached to the same document.
Is there support for that to happen?
Of course, there is no rule that requires this violation of human rights to be committed. There is no precedent in which the House has voted like this. There are precedents in which two people have been accused of the same conduct, but it has never happened that two people have been accused of unrelated conduct. Therefore, there is no rule or precedent that prevents separating these accusations. The Chamber is free to do so or not to do so, but if his accusation is voted along with that of Minister Vivanco, there would be a flagrant violation of human rights.
Do you see any intention of effectively separating the vote?
You have to ask the deputies, but I can’t imagine the Chamber making a fool of themselves by violating human rights in such a flagrant way.
What actions could you take if it is decided to vote on them together?
The State of Chile would be responsible to the international community. This would be an act of a State organ, there would be responsibility. Now, whether and how that will be enforced is still a hypothetical question, because we expect the prosecution to be divided.
