Original article: OTJ invoca la Constitución para pedir remoción del ministro Simpertigue por “mal comportamiento”

Judicial Workers’ Organization Calls for Removal of Minister Simpertigue Due to Misconduct Allegations

The Judicial Workers’ Organization (OTJ) has formally requested the Supreme Court to initiate removal proceedings against Minister Diego Simpertigue Limare, citing «misconduct» in accordance with Article 80 of the Constitution and Article 332 No. 3 of the Organic Code of Tribunals.

This petition, signed by OTJ President Marcelo Acevedo Vallejo, is based on connections between Simpertigue and the so-called «Bielorussian plot«, which involves investigations into potential corruption that are believed to have resulted in significant financial harm to the state-owned company Codelco, thereby compromising the independence, impartiality, and integrity required of the highest court’s members.

The organization argues that several public and notorious incidents—particularly Simpertigue’s close social ties with attorneys Eduardo Lagos and Mario Vargas, who are currently detained and accused of bribing former Supreme Court Minister Ángela Vivanco—constitute a case of «misconduct» that justifies the removal request.

Both Lagos and Vargas represented the Chilean-Belarusian consortium Belaz Movitec (CBM) in litigation against Codelco.

Simpertigue voted in favor of CBM on two occasions, which forced the state-owned copper company to pay over $17 billion to the consortium.

“As Your Excellencies know, our country’s Political Constitution in Article 80, first paragraph, states, ‘Judges shall hold their positions during their good behavior; but those below shall perform their respective duties for the time determined by law.’ In its third paragraph it adds: ‘In any case, the Supreme Court, at the request of the President of the Republic, at the request of an interested party, or on its own motion, may declare that judges have not shown good behavior and, following a report from the accused and from the relevant Court of Appeals, if applicable, agree to their removal by a majority of the total of its components,’” reads the document, establishing the legal basis for the petition.

The OTJ substantiated its request with four pieces of evidence acquired from journalistic investigations by outlets such as Reportea and CIPER,

Cruise with Lagos After CBM Litigation

The document outlines that, according to a Reportea investigation published on November 12, 2025, “two days after the judicial confrontation between CBM and Codelco ended, Minister Diego Simpertigue embarked on a cruise with his wife and attorney Eduardo Lagos.

The ten-day voyage through nine European cities reportedly began on June 16, 2024.

The OTJ emphasizes that Simpertigue “voted twice in favor of CBM, despite his closeness and friendship with attorney Lagos,” highlighting a critical chronological detail: “The last payment from Codelco to CBM—amounting to over $1.026 billion—was made ‘two days before the trip started.’”

In response to these revelations from Reportea, Minister Simpertigue confirmed the trip but defended his actions. In a meeting with journalists, he stated that “he personally paid for the cruise tickets for himself and his wife,” although he did not provide any documents to support this claim. Subsequently, he refused to answer written questions, claiming he would “only respond and provide documents to the Ethics Commission of the Supreme Court and to the prosecutor’s office, if applicable.”

Ruling in Favor of Inmobiliaria Fundamenta

The document also recalls that on March 1, 2023, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court—which included Simpertigue—issued a ruling that rehabilitated the “Eco Egaña” project of Inmobiliaria Fundamenta. Later, the prosecution revealed that this company had transferred $410 million to the law firm of Lagos and Vargas, funds which were purportedly aimed at «influencing the composition of Supreme Court Chambers.»

A month after this ruling, “Minister Simpertigue participated in a Mediterranean cruise with attorneys Eduardo Lagos and Mario Vargas,” accompanied by their partners.

The OTJ asserts that the seized accounting from Lagos’ firm highlighted payments that coincided with the reservation of six passengers.

Violation of “Appearance of Impartiality”:

Beyond the criminal investigation, the OTJ focuses its argument for requesting the opening of removal proceedings against Simpertigue on judicial ethics and public trust. They contend that “the issue is not solely about direct influences, but rather the damage to the appearance of impartiality: ‘A judge must not only be just and impartial but also appear to be so.’”

They accuse that “the intimate relationship between Minister Simpertigue and attorneys Lagos and Vargas prior to a trial was not disclosed in any way,” undermining the parties’ right to be aware of relevant ties.

Precedent of the Removal of Minister Vivanco:

The document recalls that the Supreme Court itself, in October 2024, used similar arguments to remove former Minister Ángela Vivanco for “misconduct.” They also cite that Minister Simpertigue publicly defended at that time that removal for this reason “can be carried out without prior disciplinary proceedings.”

In accordance with this, the OTJ argues that “there is no need to conduct a preliminary summary investigation to open Removal Proceedings.”

Deterioration and Impact on Judicial Legitimacy

The document concludes by noting that the severity of the facts—“shared trips, undisclosed connections, participation in rulings of high economic impact, and closeness to attorneys currently implicated in bribery”—deteriorates public trust in the judiciary and affects the institutional legitimacy of the Judicial Power.

“The undeniable misconduct of Minister Simpertigue today does not consist of having subjected his decision to rule in favor of CBM to direct influence… but rather in clearly revealing his close affiliation with the aforementioned attorneys, which calls into question the perception of Minister Simpertigue among the public as an impartial judge,” argues the union organization.

In light of this situation, the OTJ formally requested the esteemed Supreme Court to exercise its constitutional authority to “initiate a Removal Proceeding to evaluate Minister Diego Simpertigue Limare’s continued tenure in office.”

This request comes at a time of heightened political and judicial tension surrounding the so-called “Bielorussian Doll Case,” placing the responsibility directly in the hands of the Supreme Court to decide whether to initiate an internal procedure that could lead to the dismissal of one of its ministers.

The ball is now in the highest court’s court, which must analyze the admissibility of the request and decide whether to open the requested removal proceedings against Simpertigue, who is facing an administrative summary within the Judicial Power and a constitutional accusation in Congress.

At the same time, a team of prosecutors from the Los Lagos Region investigating the Bielorussian plot recently sent a series of requests to key state institutions to gather information about the minister, his partner, and others involved in the case.