Original article: Suprema golpea a Mega por despido de Paulina de Allende-Salazar tras decir “paco”
The Supreme Court made a significant ruling in the dispute between journalist Paulina de Allende-Salazar and Mega: the highest court declared the unification of jurisprudence requests submitted by both the journalist and the channel as inadmissible, thereby upholding the ruling which found the dismissing of Paulina de Allende-Salazar illegal after she referred to a police officer as “paco” during a live segment. The case is now entering its final stages, with one last avenue for review pending, but it sends a powerful message to the industry: not everything is acceptable when punishing journalistic practices.
In a ruling dated November 17, the Supreme Court opted not to accept any attempts for unification and, for the time being, upheld the conclusions of the Santiago Court of Appeals, which had determined that Mega violated the fundamental rights of the journalist when terminating her contract in April 2023 amid a media frenzy over her use of the term “paco” on air.
According to information from El Mostrador, where De Allende-Salazar currently works, the resolution requires the channel to implement a series of reparative measures ranging from public apologies to the creation of internal protocols and a substantial compensation, in relation to the dismissing of Paulina de Allende-Salazar, which was deemed a violation of her honor and freedom of expression.
What the Supreme Court Says About the Dismissal of Paulina de Allende-Salazar
The decision from the highest court does not delve into the specifics of the case; instead, it closes—barring an appeal—the door to unify criteria with other rulings. The Supreme concluded that the sentences presented by the journalist’s defense did not address comparable matters, whereas Mega’s arguments—relating to judicial impartiality, limits on employee freedom of expression, and harm to honor—were arbitrary or completely unrelated to the legal issue at hand.
The practical outcome is that the ruling from the appellate court remains in effect: Mega violated fundamental rights by dismissing the journalist over the incident where, during a report about a police officer’s murder, she used the term “paco,” which triggered a wave of criticism from authorities and conservative sectors, to which the channel responded by ending her employment.
The ruling acknowledges that the dismissal had a direct impact on De Allende-Salazar’s honor and her freedom of expression in the context of her journalistic work, sending a warning signal to media outlets regarding their responses to political pressures and campaigns when it comes to uncomfortable content for those in power.
Reparative Measures Against Mega: Apologies, Protocols, and Nearly $98 Million
The ruling upheld by the Supreme Court is far from merely declarative. Mega must publicly apologize to Paulina de Allende-Salazar on the morning show Mucho Gusto and across all its platforms, acknowledging the distress suffered by the journalist following the controversial incident involving the term “paco.”
Additionally, the television station is required to develop an internal protocol ensuring the right to rectify on-air, a document that must be approved by the Labor Directorate. The goal is to prevent a situation in which an error, editorial tension, or external pressure results in disproportionate punishment against a journalist, without clear channels to correct or clarify statements made live.
The judgment also compels the company to train journalists and executives in matters of freedom of expression, journalistic ethics, and fundamental labor rights, recognizing that the issue was not just a contract termination but an organizational culture that prioritized punishment over the protection of journalistic practice.
Financially, the ruling confirms the payment of all statutory compensations: prior notice, years of service, additional charges, and compensation as per Article 489 of the Labor Code, in addition to $20 million for non-pecuniary damage. In total, the figure approaches $98 million, excluding any adjustments or interests that may continue to increase the bill for the private channel.
A Final Appeal to the Supreme Court and the Closure of the ‘Paco’ Case
Despite the strength of the ruling, the process is not completely closed. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, both Paulina de Allende-Salazar’s legal team and Mega’s defense filed a reconsideration request, which opens one last opportunity for the highest court to review whether to maintain the ruling as is or to exceptionally reopen discussions.
The journalist’s lawyer, Diego Sobarzo, explained that the scenario is binary: if the Supreme Court rejects the reconsideration, the ruling stands as is; if it accepts it, it could “open the door” to a new analysis of the facts, with the possibility of adjusting the ruling. So far, Megamedia has chosen to maintain public silence and has merely reiterated that it does not comment on ongoing judicial matters.
As the Court deliberates this final move, the case is already establishing itself as an uncomfortable precedent for major media outlets: dismissing a journalist amid political controversy for saying “paco” live can be costly when courts perceive the episode not just as an editorial conflict but as an affront to freedom of expression and labor rights.
Freedom of Expression, ‘Paco’, and Editorial Line Under Pressure
Beyond the fine print of the ruling, the case challenges how media outlets confront conflicts that intersect police, politics, and public opinion. The use of the term “paco”—deeply ingrained in popular Chilean speech but strongly repudiated by Carabineros and right-wing sectors—was employed as a trigger to justify the dismissing of Paulina de Allende-Salazar, within a context of heightened sensitivity regarding security and the role of uniformed police.
Justice, however, focuses elsewhere: on how a communication company responds to external pressures, and how far sanctions can go against an employee for a controversial expression linked to journalistic practice and a public debate ongoing since the social outbreak.
With the issue nearing its conclusion and the journalist now based at El Mostrador, the ball is in the Supreme Court’s court. What is decided in this final move will determine whether the “paco case” remains as another milestone in the tension between media, political power, and police, or if it solidifies as a greater precedent in defending freedom of expression and labor rights in the communications field.
