Three ministers of Chile’s Supreme Court were dismissed between October last year and December last year. In two cases, the judges were removed by the Senate. In the third case, Judge Angela Vivanco was removed by her own colleagues on the court. The sanctions were the same: loss of mandate and five-year ban from holding any public office.
The cases were different, but with several points of contact. The parameters that formed throughout the processes became clear: to dismiss a judge, it is not necessary to prove that he committed acts of corruption (by selling convictions, for example), nor that he made decisions with the explicit aim of favoring relatives or friends. The appearance of bias, in addition to the existence of inappropriate family or personal relationships, is sufficient.
- Support: Febraban and fintechs defend British Columbia in Banco Master case
The first case, dating from October 2024, was the impeachment of Angela Vivanco, who was vice president of the Supreme Court. She was embroiled in a scandal involving lawyer Luis Hermosilla, one of the most important in the country, known for maintaining good relations with all governments, left and right. This is the biggest political and legal scandal since the democratization of Chile.
During a tax evasion investigation, in November 2023, police discovered audio recordings that showed more than inappropriate conversations between the lawyer and various authorities – courts, government and political circles.
Judge Vivanco was Hermosilla’s frequent interlocutor. They talked about everything: the progress of files, the positions of other magistrates, appointments.
- Serial investigations: In addition to fraud with the BRB, Banco Master is the target of several investigations. See which ones
In audio recordings with other authorities, Hermosilla even spoke about bribes to public officials and measures to stifle investigations.
Angela Vivanco was not caught directly negotiating any decision. But the court ruled inadmissible his relationship with the lawyer, which allowed him to know everything that was happening in court. Lawyers have been arrested and charged with various crimes.
The second case is that of Sergio Muñoz, who was impeached by the Senate for “constitutional charges.” A prestigious name in justice, a judge known for his strong positions in defending human rights and environmental and regulatory issues, was sanctioned in a close vote.
Here too, there was no question of being dishonest. The problem was of another nature: family relationships. His daughter, a lawyer, worked for companies on major economic issues, including regulation.
There was no evidence that Muñoz was helping his daughter. He was sanctioned for not having clarified this situation and for not having declared his impediment in certain cases. This was the most controversial departure. Muñoz said his firing was political revenge.
The third case, also due to a “constitutional accusation”, is that of judge Diego Simpéritigue, dismissed by the Senate on December 22, unanimously.
There has been a long and costly conflict between a multinational corporation and the state-owned Codelco, a producer of copper, Chile’s main source of wealth. This multinational supplied heavy equipment and was sued by Codelco for non-compliance with the contract.
For its part, the multinational argued that it had been the victim of a breach of contract and the consequent loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. The case went through several court proceedings before reaching the Supreme Court. And the Simperitigue vote was favorable to the multinational.
There was also another case involving the construction company Fundamenta. The company has been the subject of several lawsuits – and expensive ones. Arriving at the Supreme Court, the vote was taken and Simperitigue did not declare himself prevented, despite personal relations with the company’s lawyers.
Furthermore, the press surprised Simpéritigue and his wife on a cruise in the Mediterranean, in the company of a lawyer from this multinational. It was later discovered that this was not his first trip.
During the debates, the senators clarified that the content of the magistrate’s votes was not on the table, but that the fact that he had not declared himself was hampered.
About The Author
